Robert C. King v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Robert C. King v. United States

329 F.2d 257

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 1964

Docket18119

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 329 F.2d 257 (Robert C. King 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

Robert C. King v. United States, 329 F.2d 257 (D.C. Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on a two-count indictment for taking indecent liberties with a minor child. 1 He claims several errors were committed by the trial court. Only one needs to be discussed. Appellant says the court erred in instructing in the language of the statute, telling the jury that one element of the offense was that the defendant “[took], or attempted] to take” indecent liberties. Appellant says taking and attempting to take are two separate offenses and that this should have been made clear to the jury. He cites People v. Crane. 2 But, in the first place, no objection was made in the trial court to the instruction. And, in the second place, the penalty under the statute for an attempt is the same as that for a taking, even if the two are regarded as separate offenses. The sentence given appellant was well within the statutory prescription. Thus no substantial right seems to have been affected in any realistic sense, even if the instruction was erroneous. 3 In the third place, the evidence of guilt in this case was overwhelming.

Affirmed.

1

. 62 Stat. 347 (1948), D.C.Code, § 22-3501 (a) (1961 ed.).

2

. 302 Ill. 217, 134 N.E. 99 (1922).

3

. McQuaid v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 193 F.2d 696 (D.C.Cir. 1951).

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted on a two-count indictment for taking indecent liberties with a minor child. 1 He claims several errors were committed by the trial court. Only one needs to be discussed. Appellant says the court erred in instructing in the language of the statute, telling the jury that one element of the offense was that the defendant “[took], or attempted] to take” indecent liberties. Appellant says taking and attempting to take are two separate offenses and that this should have been made clear to the jury. He cites People v. Crane. 2 But, in the first place, no objection was made in the trial court to the instruction. And, in the second place, the penalty under the statute for an attempt is the same as that for a taking, even if the two are regarded as separate offenses. The sentence given appellant was well within the statutory prescription. Thus no substantial right seems to have been affected in any realistic sense, even if the instruction was erroneous. 3 In the third place, the evidence of guilt in this case was overwhelming.

Affirmed.

1

. 62 Stat. 347 (1948), D.C.Code, § 22-3501 (a) (1961 ed.).

2

. 302 Ill. 217, 134 N.E. 99 (1922).

3

. McQuaid v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 193 F.2d 696 (D.C.Cir. 1951).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F.2d 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-c-king-v-united-states-cadc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack