Joe Carl Nixon v. United States

352 F.2d 601, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4268, 1966 A.M.C. 679
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 18, 1965
Docket21864_1
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 352 F.2d 601 (Joe Carl Nixon v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Joe Carl Nixon v. United States, 352 F.2d 601, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4268, 1966 A.M.C. 679 (5th Cir. 1965).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joe Carl Nixon, a deck hand on the shrimpboat MISS LISA, shot and killed the captain of the trawler after a fist fight preceded by a drinking bout. David Harold McGraw, the other deck hand, jumped overboard. Nixon shot and wounded McGraw as he swam to safety. Nixon was found guilty on two counts, second degree murder 1 and assault with intent to murder. 2

First, we conclude that the record supports the finding that the actions leading to Nixon’s indictment took place on the high seas. The case is therefore within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 3 Jurisdiction, however, would have attached even had the trawler been in Mexican territorial waters since the offenses occurred on a vessel of United States ownership and registry. United States v. Rodgers, 1893, 150 U.S. 249, 14 S.Ct. 109, 37 L.Ed. 1071.

Second, the verdicts on the two counts of the indictment are not inconsistent. The record shows that the conviction under each count was sustained by the evidence. Dunn v. United States, 1932, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356. There is no general requirement for a separate trial on each count of the indictment of a single offender for multiple offenses. Rule 8(a), Fed.Rules Crim.Proc.; Griffin v. United States, 5th Cir. 1959, 272 F.2d 801, opinion corrected and rehearing denied, 1960, 273 F.2d 958.

We have reviewed appellant’s other specifications of error. They are without substance. The judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1111.

2

. 18 U.S.C.A. § 113(a).

3

. 18 U.S.C.A. § 7(1).

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

Related

United States v. Roberts
1 F. Supp. 2d 601 (E.D. Louisiana, 1998)
Langley v. Ryder
602 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. Louisiana, 1985)
United States v. Wilson
565 F. Supp. 1416 (S.D. New York, 1983)
Lucius J. Breeland v. United States
396 F.2d 805 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)
Robert G. Baker v. United States
401 F.2d 958 (D.C. Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
352 F.2d 601, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4268, 1966 A.M.C. 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-carl-nixon-v-united-states-ca5-1965.