Melvina O'Neal v. United States

222 F.2d 411, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 386, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3831
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 5, 1955
Docket12333_1
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 222 F.2d 411 (Melvina O'Neal 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
Melvina O'Neal v. United States, 222 F.2d 411, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 386, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3831 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Melvina O’Neal was found guilty by a jury in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia of maintaining a common nuisance by keeping a place resorted to by narcotic drug addicts for the purpose of using narcotic drugs, in violation of § 33-416, D.C.Code 1951. The Municipal Court of Appeals affirmed and we granted an appeal. Reference is made to that court’s opinion, reported in 1954, 105 A.2d 739, 741, for a statement of the facts.

Some days prior to the trial the appellant filed a written motion “that the evidence taken from her at the time of her arrest be suppressed at the trial herein, as the arrest was illegal, and the subsequent search of her premises was in violation of her Constitutional rights.” The articles which appellant desired to be suppressed for use as evidence were not enumerated or described in the motion, nor were they identified at the hearing on the motion. The motion was therefore insufficient and need not have been considered. The trial judge entertained the motion, however, and we agree with the Municipal Court of Appeals that he correctly denied it.

The only other ground for reversal is the contention that the trial court erred in permitting one of the officers to testify that he found 34 capsules of heroin hydrochloride on the ground outside the house and beneath an open window of the second story apartment where appellant and other persons were assembled. With respect to these capsules the Municipal Court of Appeals said in its opinion: “We find nothing in the record to show that any objection was made to this evidence.” Nor do we find any indication of an objection.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Amador v. State
275 S.W.3d 872 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
Amador, Justin
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009
Southern v. State
807 A.2d 13 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2002)
State v. Wamre
1999 ND 164 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1999)
Nygaard v. Continental Resources, Inc.
1999 ND 172 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1999)
People v. Seawright
593 N.E.2d 1003 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1992)
State v. Gruver
606 A.2d 39 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)
Norman v. State
302 So. 2d 254 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1974)
WONG
13 I. & N. Dec. 820 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1971)
State v. Larko
280 A.2d 153 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1971)
United States v. Frank Lewis
433 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Circuit, 1970)
State v. Criscuolo
275 A.2d 613 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1970)
Bunter v. United States
245 A.2d 839 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1968)
Marshall v. United States
229 A.2d 449 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1967)
Smallwood v. District of Columbia
116 A.2d 599 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 F.2d 411, 95 U.S. App. D.C. 386, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvina-oneal-v-united-states-cadc-1955.