Liberty J. Bridgers v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Liberty J. Bridgers v. United States

312 F.2d 333

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1963

Docket17031_1

StatusPublished

This text of 312 F.2d 333 (Liberty J. Bridgers 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

Liberty J. Bridgers v. United States, 312 F.2d 333 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of the crimes of housebreaking with intent to steal property, and of rape. He received concurrent sentences of the same length on each of the two counts.

On this appeal, it is urged that the Government had not adequately established, under the facts of this case, proof of carnal knowledge of the complaining witness forcibly and against her will, and that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish the necessary element of proof of the specific intent to steal, as charged in the indictment. Appellant further urges that the testimony of the complaining witness was incredible and not adequately corroborated to sustain a conviction of the crime of rape.

We have examined the contentions, ably and forcefully urged by appointed counsel, but are convinced that there were no errors affecting substantial rights.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of the crimes of housebreaking with intent to steal property, and of rape. He received concurrent sentences of the same length on each of the two counts.

On this appeal, it is urged that the Government had not adequately established, under the facts of this case, proof of carnal knowledge of the complaining witness forcibly and against her will, and that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish the necessary element of proof of the specific intent to steal, as charged in the indictment. Appellant further urges that the testimony of the complaining witness was incredible and not adequately corroborated to sustain a conviction of the crime of rape.

We have examined the contentions, ably and forcefully urged by appointed counsel, but are convinced that there were no errors affecting substantial rights.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 F.2d 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-j-bridgers-v-united-states-cadc-1963.