In Re Davis

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

In Re Davis

264 A.2d 297, 1970 D.C. App. LEXIS 268

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1970

Docket5074

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 264 A.2d 297 (In Re Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Davis, 264 A.2d 297, 1970 D.C. App. LEXIS 268 (D.C. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After trial in the Juvenile Court without a jury, appellant was found to have violated our statute forbidding the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. D.C.Code 1967, § 22-2204. This appeal raises several questions, but only one requires our consideration.

In finding appellant to be “involved”, the court stated that it found that *298 appellant “was a passenger in what has been established to have been a stolen car.” This finding was insufficient to establish a violation of the statute. One does not violate the statute by merely being a passenger in a stolen car. There must be proof that the accused had “guilty knowledge of the unauthorized use.” Jones v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 212, 216, 404 F.2d 212, 216 (1968). See also Stevens v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 319 F.2d 733 (1963); Kemp v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C.. 88, 311 F.2d 774 (1962). As there was no finding here of such guilty knowledge, the conviction cannot stand.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

After trial in the Juvenile Court without a jury, appellant was found to have violated our statute forbidding the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. D.C.Code 1967, § 22-2204. This appeal raises several questions, but only one requires our consideration.

In finding appellant to be “involved”, the court stated that it found that *298 appellant “was a passenger in what has been established to have been a stolen car.” This finding was insufficient to establish a violation of the statute. One does not violate the statute by merely being a passenger in a stolen car. There must be proof that the accused had “guilty knowledge of the unauthorized use.” Jones v. United States, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 212, 216, 404 F.2d 212, 216 (1968). See also Stevens v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 319 F.2d 733 (1963); Kemp v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C.. 88, 311 F.2d 774 (1962). As there was no finding here of such guilty knowledge, the conviction cannot stand.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.2d 297, 1970 D.C. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-davis-dc-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack