Oshel Eugene Kittrell v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Oshel Eugene Kittrell v. United States

334 F.2d 242, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4694

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 16, 1964

Docket19890

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 334 F.2d 242 (Oshel Eugene Kittrell 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

Oshel Eugene Kittrell v. United States, 334 F.2d 242, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4694 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On the submission of this case, our study showed that the principal question was the correctness of the charge to the jury on the issue of insanity. As that matter was then under consideration by the Court en banc in Carter v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 314 F.2d 386, further action was expressly deferred pending decision of that case. On December 12, 1963, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. Pursuant to that request, we ordered the appeal dismissed on December 24, 1963. Then on December 30, 1963, Appellant filed a motion to reinstate *243 his appeal which we have granted. On the merits we affirm.

The charge under attack conforms to the requirements of Howard v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 602, Rev’d on Rehearing, 5 Cir., 232 F.2d 274, and Davis v. United States, 1895, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499, and the equal division of the Court in Carter v. United States does not call for any different result. There is obviously no merit to the point on speedy trial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

On the submission of this case, our study showed that the principal question was the correctness of the charge to the jury on the issue of insanity. As that matter was then under consideration by the Court en banc in Carter v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 314 F.2d 386, further action was expressly deferred pending decision of that case. On December 12, 1963, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. Pursuant to that request, we ordered the appeal dismissed on December 24, 1963. Then on December 30, 1963, Appellant filed a motion to reinstate *243 his appeal which we have granted. On the merits we affirm.

The charge under attack conforms to the requirements of Howard v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 602, Rev’d on Rehearing, 5 Cir., 232 F.2d 274, and Davis v. United States, 1895, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499, and the equal division of the Court in Carter v. United States does not call for any different result. There is obviously no merit to the point on speedy trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F.2d 242, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oshel-eugene-kittrell-v-united-states-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack