Jack O. King v. District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

Jack O. King v. District of Columbia

345 F.2d 440, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 223, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5909

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1965

Docket18705

StatusPublished

This text of 345 F.2d 440 (Jack O. King v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jack O. King v. District of Columbia, 345 F.2d 440, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 223, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5909 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

BAZELON, Chief Judge.

This court granted the petition for allowance of an appeal from a judgment of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to consider the issue of collateral estoppel in criminal prosecutions. Appellant is a dealer in old coins and stamps who was twice prosecuted, on informations identical except as to the date of offense, for violation of the District of Columbia Code’s prohibition against dealing in second-hand personal property without a license. 1 *Prosecution under the first information led to an acquittal, on the ground that appellant’s activities were not within the purview of the statute. Shortly thereafter, the second information was filed, and the court granted the defendant’s motion to quash on res judicata grounds. The District Government appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which reversed, Judge Quinn dissenting. 2

No bill of exceptions was drawn in the first prosecution and it is not known what evidence was presented or issues tendered. The papers filed in the second case do not indicate what matters were decided in the first suit and the parties have not supplemented this record. Thus the proceedings at the first trial are clouded in doubt, and the important question we thought would be presented is not appropriately before us. We therefore dismiss the appeal as improvidently granted.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. D.C.Code § 47-2339.

2

. 201 A.2d 530 (1964).

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

BAZELON, Chief Judge.

This court granted the petition for allowance of an appeal from a judgment of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to consider the issue of collateral estoppel in criminal prosecutions. Appellant is a dealer in old coins and stamps who was twice prosecuted, on informations identical except as to the date of offense, for violation of the District of Columbia Code’s prohibition against dealing in second-hand personal property without a license. 1 *Prosecution under the first information led to an acquittal, on the ground that appellant’s activities were not within the purview of the statute. Shortly thereafter, the second information was filed, and the court granted the defendant’s motion to quash on res judicata grounds. The District Government appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which reversed, Judge Quinn dissenting. 2

No bill of exceptions was drawn in the first prosecution and it is not known what evidence was presented or issues tendered. The papers filed in the second case do not indicate what matters were decided in the first suit and the parties have not supplemented this record. Thus the proceedings at the first trial are clouded in doubt, and the important question we thought would be presented is not appropriately before us. We therefore dismiss the appeal as improvidently granted.

Appeal dismissed.

1

. D.C.Code § 47-2339.

2

. 201 A.2d 530 (1964).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 F.2d 440, 120 U.S. App. D.C. 223, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-o-king-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack