Turner v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Turner v. District of Columbia

132 A.2d 149, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 236

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 21, 1957

DocketNo. 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 132 A.2d 149 (Turner v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Turner v. District of Columbia, 132 A.2d 149, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 236 (D.C. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of selling and keeping, for sale alcoholic beverages without a license. Code 1951, § 25-109 (a) (Supp. V). In connection with the same transaction a man named Barksdale was charged in a separate information and by consent the two men were tried together. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

The gist of the Government’s proof was that two police officers approached Barks-dale on a Sunday morning and asked if he knew where they could get some whisky. Barksdale agreed to obtain two half pints of whisky; one of the officers gave him two marked one-dollar bills; and the three men went to an apartment building where appellant Turner lived. The officers, staying behind on a stair landing, saw Turner open his apartment door, speak with Barks-dale, go back into the apartment, and shortly return with two half pints of whis-ky which he handed to Barksdale in exchange for “something” which was not further identified by the Government. After some delay Turner admitted the officers into his apartment, where they found 34 bottles of wine, 7 bottles of whisky, and 15 cans of beer.

[150]*150We must rule that the evidence supported a verdict of guilt. It is true that though Turner did not take the stand, there was evidence by Barksdale and by a brother of Turner contradicting some parts of the officers’ testimony; but this presented nothing more than a factual dispute. See Young v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 102 A.2d 754.

There is no basis whatever for applying appellant’s theory that the evidence was as consistent with innocence as with guilt. See Hammond v. United States, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 127 F.2d 752.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant of selling and keeping, for sale alcoholic beverages without a license. Code 1951, § 25-109 (a) (Supp. V). In connection with the same transaction a man named Barksdale was charged in a separate information and by consent the two men were tried together. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.

The gist of the Government’s proof was that two police officers approached Barks-dale on a Sunday morning and asked if he knew where they could get some whisky. Barksdale agreed to obtain two half pints of whisky; one of the officers gave him two marked one-dollar bills; and the three men went to an apartment building where appellant Turner lived. The officers, staying behind on a stair landing, saw Turner open his apartment door, speak with Barks-dale, go back into the apartment, and shortly return with two half pints of whis-ky which he handed to Barksdale in exchange for “something” which was not further identified by the Government. After some delay Turner admitted the officers into his apartment, where they found 34 bottles of wine, 7 bottles of whisky, and 15 cans of beer.

[150]*150We must rule that the evidence supported a verdict of guilt. It is true that though Turner did not take the stand, there was evidence by Barksdale and by a brother of Turner contradicting some parts of the officers’ testimony; but this presented nothing more than a factual dispute. See Young v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 102 A.2d 754.

There is no basis whatever for applying appellant’s theory that the evidence was as consistent with innocence as with guilt. See Hammond v. United States, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 127 F.2d 752.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 A.2d 149, 1957 D.C. App. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-district-of-columbia-dc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack