Pinkney v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Pinkney v. District of Columbia

168 A.2d 198, 1961 D.C. App. LEXIS 305

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided March 8, 1961·No. No. 2664·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s chief contention is that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support her conviction of being a vagrant in violation of those parts of D.C.Code, 1951 (Supp. VIII), § 22-3302, which define a vagrant as:

“(3) Any person leading an immoral or profligate life who has no lawful employment and who has ho lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source. *****

“(8) Any person who wanders about the streets at late or unusual hours of the night without any visible or lawful business and not giving a good account of himself.”

Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence supported a finding of guilty.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s chief contention is that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support her conviction of being a vagrant in violation of those parts of D.C.Code, 1951 (Supp. VIII), § 22-3302, which define a vagrant as:

“(3) Any person leading an immoral or profligate life who has no lawful employment and who has ho lawful means of support realized from a lawful occupation or source. *****

“(8) Any person who wanders about the streets at late or unusual hours of the night without any visible or lawful business and not giving a good account of himself.”

Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence supported a finding of guilty.

Affirmed.

Pinkney v. District of Columbia, 168 A.2d 198, 1961 D.C. App. LEXIS 305 (D.C. 1961).

Pincite

168 A.2d 198 (Pinkney v. District of Columbia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.