Raymond Dean v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Raymond Dean v. United States

314 F.2d 250, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 245, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3285

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 1962

Docket17214_1

StatusPublished

This text of 314 F.2d 250 (Raymond Dean 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

Raymond Dean v. United States, 314 F.2d 250, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 245, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3285 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of § 22-502 D.C.Code, and sentenced January 8, 1960, to imprisonment for three to nine years. There followed various motions and documents filed by him in the District Court and in this court. These leave a question whether the case is before us on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or from an order denying a collateral attack on the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This question as well as the merits have been ably analyzed and presented to us by counsel appointed by this court.

There is no doubt that appellant’s indictment arose out of the discharge of a pistol in his hand while he was brandishing the pistol in front of a number of people who, with him, were attending an evening party. Nor is there dispute that the bullet struck and wounded the complaining witness who testified at the trial.

*251 Present counsel urges error, including lack of clarity, in the court’s instructions to the jury (1) on the necessity for the prosecution to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to negate the claim that the discharge of the pistol was accidental, and (2) with respect to the credibility of the chief witness for the prosecution whose testimony in some respects could be found by the jury to have been false. Though we may agree that the instructions contained errors, we nevertheless think the errors not serious enough to require reversal. This is so whether the appeal is considered as from the judgment of conviction, or a fortiori, from the order denying the motion under Section 2255. Ramsour v. United States, 108 U.S. App.D.C. 49, 280 F.2d 57 (1960).

We are also unable to accept the contention that a verdict of not guilty should have been directed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of § 22-502 D.C.Code, and sentenced January 8, 1960, to imprisonment for three to nine years. There followed various motions and documents filed by him in the District Court and in this court. These leave a question whether the case is before us on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or from an order denying a collateral attack on the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This question as well as the merits have been ably analyzed and presented to us by counsel appointed by this court.

There is no doubt that appellant’s indictment arose out of the discharge of a pistol in his hand while he was brandishing the pistol in front of a number of people who, with him, were attending an evening party. Nor is there dispute that the bullet struck and wounded the complaining witness who testified at the trial.

*251 Present counsel urges error, including lack of clarity, in the court’s instructions to the jury (1) on the necessity for the prosecution to sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to negate the claim that the discharge of the pistol was accidental, and (2) with respect to the credibility of the chief witness for the prosecution whose testimony in some respects could be found by the jury to have been false. Though we may agree that the instructions contained errors, we nevertheless think the errors not serious enough to require reversal. This is so whether the appeal is considered as from the judgment of conviction, or a fortiori, from the order denying the motion under Section 2255. Ramsour v. United States, 108 U.S. App.D.C. 49, 280 F.2d 57 (1960).

We are also unable to accept the contention that a verdict of not guilty should have been directed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 F.2d 250, 114 U.S. App. D.C. 245, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-dean-v-united-states-cadc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack