James S. Smith v. United States

D.C. Circuit

James S. Smith v. United States

306 F.2d 286, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 126, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4395

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 26, 1962

Docket16957_1

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 306 F.2d 286 (James S. Smith v. United States) 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

James S. Smith v. United States, 306 F.2d 286, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 126, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4395 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted as an accessory after the fact to the robbery by Ernest Greene of property of Pauline Turner, and was convicted. D.C.Code § 22-106 (1961). On appeal, court-appointed counsel makes several contentions, the chief of which is that “a person who is present before, during, and after a crime may not be convicted as accessory after the fact.” The Government’s evidence was to the effect that appellant and Greene were together when Greene snatched Pauline Turner’s wallet, promptly handing it over to appellant; Greene and appellant then fled, and were separately apprehended. If this be believed, counsel urges, the Government should have charged appellant with advising, inciting, or conniving at the offense or aiding or abetting the principal offender.” D.C.Code § 22-105 (1961). Be that as it may, we think the present case is controlled by Section 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code (1958), which provides:

“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

*287 The statute makes no exception for persons who are present at the scene of the crime, or who may have participated in the planning or execution of the offense. We see no reason why any such exception should be read into the statutory language. Cf. Skelly v. United States, 76 F.2d 483, 487 (10th Cir. 1935); White v. People, 81 Ill. 333 (1876).

We have reviewed all of the contentions made, and find no error affecting substantial rights.

A rmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted as an accessory after the fact to the robbery by Ernest Greene of property of Pauline Turner, and was convicted. D.C.Code § 22-106 (1961). On appeal, court-appointed counsel makes several contentions, the chief of which is that “a person who is present before, during, and after a crime may not be convicted as accessory after the fact.” The Government’s evidence was to the effect that appellant and Greene were together when Greene snatched Pauline Turner’s wallet, promptly handing it over to appellant; Greene and appellant then fled, and were separately apprehended. If this be believed, counsel urges, the Government should have charged appellant with advising, inciting, or conniving at the offense or aiding or abetting the principal offender.” D.C.Code § 22-105 (1961). Be that as it may, we think the present case is controlled by Section 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code (1958), which provides:

“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

*287 The statute makes no exception for persons who are present at the scene of the crime, or who may have participated in the planning or execution of the offense. We see no reason why any such exception should be read into the statutory language. Cf. Skelly v. United States, 76 F.2d 483, 487 (10th Cir. 1935); White v. People, 81 Ill. 333 (1876).

We have reviewed all of the contentions made, and find no error affecting substantial rights.

A rmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 F.2d 286, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 126, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-s-smith-v-united-states-cadc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack