United States v. Jerry L. Cunningham

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Jerry L. Cunningham

436 F.2d 907, 141 U.S. App. D.C. 177, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6299

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1970

Docket23176, 23615

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 436 F.2d 907 (United States v. Jerry L. Cunningham) 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

United States v. Jerry L. Cunningham, 436 F.2d 907, 141 U.S. App. D.C. 177, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6299 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, together with two other defendants, was charged with robbery in violation of D.C.Code § 22-2901. His co-defendants pleaded guilty. The appellant was found guilty by jury verdict. Having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he presents on this appeal contentions that the evidence against him was insufficient to establish guilt beyond *908 a reasonable doubt and that he was denied rights of counsel and due process by an on-the-scene identification.

The issues presented have been accorded full consideration by this Court but are deemed not to require a detailed opinion in view of the record.

The claim of insufficient evidence is without merit. Crawford v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 375 F.2d 332 (1967); Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 160 F.2d 229, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837, 67 S.Ct. 1511, 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947). Aside from the question raised concerning identification, there was convincing evidence of circumstances of participation culminating in physical possession by the defendant of a portion of the money which fully warranted the verdict.

If there is any Wade-Stovall problem presented, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), it is not in a lineup-right-to-eounsel context, and the result is controlled by Russell v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 408 F.2d 1280, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 928, 89 S.Ct. 1786, 23 L.Ed.2d 245 (1969).

The effect of the on-the-scene “identification” within an hour of the robbery primarily was to establish similarity of clothing and general appearance as an additional circumstance in the chain leading to appellant’s apprehension with a portion of the stolen money in his possession. The in-court identification was of similar nature. Appellant is hard put here, and did not even attempt at the trial through objection or otherwise, to indicate any prejudice or inadmissibility of the evidence in question. We find no error.

Accordingly, the judgments of the District Court are

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, together with two other defendants, was charged with robbery in violation of D.C.Code § 22-2901. His co-defendants pleaded guilty. The appellant was found guilty by jury verdict. Having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he presents on this appeal contentions that the evidence against him was insufficient to establish guilt beyond *908 a reasonable doubt and that he was denied rights of counsel and due process by an on-the-scene identification.

The issues presented have been accorded full consideration by this Court but are deemed not to require a detailed opinion in view of the record.

The claim of insufficient evidence is without merit. Crawford v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 375 F.2d 332 (1967); Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 160 F.2d 229, cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837, 67 S.Ct. 1511, 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947). Aside from the question raised concerning identification, there was convincing evidence of circumstances of participation culminating in physical possession by the defendant of a portion of the money which fully warranted the verdict.

If there is any Wade-Stovall problem presented, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967), and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), it is not in a lineup-right-to-eounsel context, and the result is controlled by Russell v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 408 F.2d 1280, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 928, 89 S.Ct. 1786, 23 L.Ed.2d 245 (1969).

The effect of the on-the-scene “identification” within an hour of the robbery primarily was to establish similarity of clothing and general appearance as an additional circumstance in the chain leading to appellant’s apprehension with a portion of the stolen money in his possession. The in-court identification was of similar nature. Appellant is hard put here, and did not even attempt at the trial through objection or otherwise, to indicate any prejudice or inadmissibility of the evidence in question. We find no error.

Accordingly, the judgments of the District Court are

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 F.2d 907, 141 U.S. App. D.C. 177, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jerry-l-cunningham-cadc-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack