Tommie D. Lewis v. United States

381 F.2d 894, 127 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5799
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 1967
Docket20120_1
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 381 F.2d 894 (Tommie D. Lewis 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
Tommie D. Lewis v. United States, 381 F.2d 894, 127 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5799 (D.C. Cir. 1967).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was indicted for second degree murder, D.C.Code § 22-2403, and convicted of that offense. On this appeal he urges that the evidence tending to show his guilt, which was in conflict with other evidence, was so incredible that the trial judge should have directed the jury to render a verdict of not guilty.

Three witnesses for the prosecution testified they were present at the time of the homicide. While their respective versions as to just how it came about varied materially, in their testimony was quite enough pointing to the guilt of appellant to support the verdict. The choice by the jury to believe the testimony which supports their verdict was theirs to make.

It is also contended that the conviction should be reversed because the trial judge failed to exercise his discretion in admitting or refusing to admit as impeaching evidence three prior assault convictions of appellant. Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763, is relied upon. The United States points out that appellant did not invoke Luck at trial and, therefore, may not rely upon it for reversal, citing several of our decisions to that effect. The evidence as a whole, considered with the cases thus relied upon by the United States, constrains us not to reverse for failure of the trial court to comply with Luck; but we add that in the fair administration of justice some obligation is imposed by Luck upon the trial court and the prosecution, and the time may come when we shall not feel bound to ignore its principles merely because the defense does so.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Leibstein v. Lafarge North America Inc.
689 F. Supp. 2d 373 (E.D. New York, 2010)
Bustillos v. State
464 S.W.2d 118 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1971)
State v. Turner
478 P.2d 747 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1970)
United States v. Joseph Coleman
420 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Circuit, 1969)
United States v. A. D. Allison
414 F.2d 407 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)
Franklyn Weaver v. United States
408 F.2d 1269 (D.C. Circuit, 1969)
Theodore C. Williams v. United States
394 F.2d 957 (D.C. Circuit, 1968)
Zedekiah Suggs v. United States
391 F.2d 971 (D.C. Circuit, 1968)
Jackson v. United States
232 A.2d 576 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1967)
Tommie D. Lewis v. United States
381 F.2d 894 (D.C. Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 F.2d 894, 127 U.S. App. D.C. 115, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tommie-d-lewis-v-united-states-cadc-1967.