Ralph W. Greene, Jr. v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Ralph W. Greene, Jr. v. United States

314 F.2d 271, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 266, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6272

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1963

Docket17235

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 314 F.2d 271 (Ralph W. Greene, Jr. 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

Ralph W. Greene, Jr. v. United States, 314 F.2d 271, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 266, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6272 (D.C. Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery in which the principal contention is directed at the court’s instructions and failure of proof in relation to criminal responsibility. As to the first we find the record shows a conflict in the evidence on the issue of whether appellant suffered any mental disease, defect or disorder and whether, if he did, the act was its “product.” The court’s *272 charge as originally given on the burden of proof on this issue was deficient and upon counsel’s timely objection the District Judge restated the burden of proof. Defense counsel made no further point or comment and in these circumstances we must view the corrective instruction as one which he approved. We have also considered appellant’s other contentions and find no error. 1

Affirmed.

1

. In the charge to the jury the statement was made that when the “presumption of sanity is called into question by evidence which may tend to show he was not [sane] the presumption vanishes, and is no longer to he considered.” This was incorrect; it inadvertently overlooked Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469 at 486-488, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L. Ed. 499 (1895), which explicitly held' that the presumption of sanity remains in the case and is to be considered by the jury along with all other evidence. The error was not prejudicial to the accused, however, and may be disregarded' under the circumstances presented here.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery in which the principal contention is directed at the court’s instructions and failure of proof in relation to criminal responsibility. As to the first we find the record shows a conflict in the evidence on the issue of whether appellant suffered any mental disease, defect or disorder and whether, if he did, the act was its “product.” The court’s *272 charge as originally given on the burden of proof on this issue was deficient and upon counsel’s timely objection the District Judge restated the burden of proof. Defense counsel made no further point or comment and in these circumstances we must view the corrective instruction as one which he approved. We have also considered appellant’s other contentions and find no error. 1

Affirmed.

1

. In the charge to the jury the statement was made that when the “presumption of sanity is called into question by evidence which may tend to show he was not [sane] the presumption vanishes, and is no longer to he considered.” This was incorrect; it inadvertently overlooked Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469 at 486-488, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L. Ed. 499 (1895), which explicitly held' that the presumption of sanity remains in the case and is to be considered by the jury along with all other evidence. The error was not prejudicial to the accused, however, and may be disregarded' under the circumstances presented here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 F.2d 271, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 266, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-w-greene-jr-v-united-states-cadc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack