Peterson v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Peterson v. District of Columbia

171 A.2d 95, 1961 D.C. App. LEXIS 229

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 2, 1961

Docket2778, 2779

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 171 A.2d 95 (Peterson v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peterson v. District of Columbia, 171 A.2d 95, 1961 D.C. App. LEXIS 229 (D.C. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant was convicted of two traffic offenses, namely, “colliding” 1 and “leaving after colliding.” 2 He asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support either conviction.

The evidence was that at about two hours after midnight an automobile owned by one Margaret Middleton collided with an automobile parked in front of its owner’s home; that the only occupant of the striking vehicle was the driver, a man, and immediately after the collision he abandoned the automobile and ran away. Two neighbors of the owner of the parked vehicle heard the noise of the collision and saw the driver get out and run away. One of them made no attempt to identify appellant as the driver; the other testified he could not be sure as to the driver’s identity, but that appellant “looked like” the driver.

In addition to the above there was evidence that appellant was a friend of Middleton, the owner of the striking vehicle, and that he had access to its keys and occasionally drove it. But there was no evidence that appellant drove the automobile on the night of the collision other than the testimony of the single witness that appellant looked like the man who got out and ran away.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the total effect of the evidence established only the possibility that appellant was the driver of the strik *96 ing automobile; but conviction of a criminal offense requires more support than a mere possibility.

Reversed with instructions to enter judgments of acquittal.

1

. See Section 22 of the Traffic & Motor Vehicle Regulations.

2

. See Code 1951, § 40-609, Supp. VIII.

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

HOOD, Associate Judge.

Appellant was convicted of two traffic offenses, namely, “colliding” 1 and “leaving after colliding.” 2 He asserts that the evidence was not sufficient to support either conviction.

The evidence was that at about two hours after midnight an automobile owned by one Margaret Middleton collided with an automobile parked in front of its owner’s home; that the only occupant of the striking vehicle was the driver, a man, and immediately after the collision he abandoned the automobile and ran away. Two neighbors of the owner of the parked vehicle heard the noise of the collision and saw the driver get out and run away. One of them made no attempt to identify appellant as the driver; the other testified he could not be sure as to the driver’s identity, but that appellant “looked like” the driver.

In addition to the above there was evidence that appellant was a friend of Middleton, the owner of the striking vehicle, and that he had access to its keys and occasionally drove it. But there was no evidence that appellant drove the automobile on the night of the collision other than the testimony of the single witness that appellant looked like the man who got out and ran away.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the total effect of the evidence established only the possibility that appellant was the driver of the strik *96 ing automobile; but conviction of a criminal offense requires more support than a mere possibility.

Reversed with instructions to enter judgments of acquittal.

1

. See Section 22 of the Traffic & Motor Vehicle Regulations.

2

. See Code 1951, § 40-609, Supp. VIII.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.2d 95, 1961 D.C. App. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-district-of-columbia-dc-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack