Quillo W. Adams v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Quillo W. Adams v. United States

239 F.2d 451, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 288, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4180

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1956

Docket13419

StatusPublished

This text of 239 F.2d 451 (Quillo W. Adams 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

Quillo W. Adams v. United States, 239 F.2d 451, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 288, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4180 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a judgment of conviction of housebreaking in violation of § 22-1801 and of larceny in violation of § 22-2206, D.C.Code 1951. The sole question is whether it was reversible error for the District Court to admit evidence of the defendant’s participation in another alleged crime of similar character committed the same evening. The circumstances as a whole were such that the admission of this evidence was within the discretion permitted the District Court under the principles discussed in our opinions in Borum v. United States, 61 App.D.C. 4, 56 F.2d 301; Tomlinson v. United States, 68 App.D.C. 106, 93 F. 2d 652, 114 A.L.R. 1315, certiorari denied 303 U.S. 646, 58 S.Ct. 645, 82 L.Ed. 1107; Bracey v. United States, 79 U.S. App.D.C. 23, 142 F.2d 85, certiorari denied 322 U.S. 762, 64 S.Ct. 1274, 88 L.Ed. 1589; Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U. S.App.D.C. 345, 226 F.2d 251; Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 239 F.2d 945.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a judgment of conviction of housebreaking in violation of § 22-1801 and of larceny in violation of § 22-2206, D.C.Code 1951. The sole question is whether it was reversible error for the District Court to admit evidence of the defendant’s participation in another alleged crime of similar character committed the same evening. The circumstances as a whole were such that the admission of this evidence was within the discretion permitted the District Court under the principles discussed in our opinions in Borum v. United States, 61 App.D.C. 4, 56 F.2d 301; Tomlinson v. United States, 68 App.D.C. 106, 93 F. 2d 652, 114 A.L.R. 1315, certiorari denied 303 U.S. 646, 58 S.Ct. 645, 82 L.Ed. 1107; Bracey v. United States, 79 U.S. App.D.C. 23, 142 F.2d 85, certiorari denied 322 U.S. 762, 64 S.Ct. 1274, 88 L.Ed. 1589; Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U. S.App.D.C. 345, 226 F.2d 251; Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 239 F.2d 945.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 F.2d 451, 99 U.S. App. D.C. 288, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 4180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quillo-w-adams-v-united-states-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack