United States v. Raymond Leroy Frazier

418 F.2d 854
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 28, 1969
Docket13578_1
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 418 F.2d 854 (United States v. Raymond Leroy Frazier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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. Raymond Leroy Frazier, 418 F.2d 854 (4th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted on an indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S. C. § 1201, in that he “did knowingly transport two individuals from North Charleston, South Carolina, to Savannah, Georgia, who had theretofore been unlawfully seized, abducted, kidnapped, carried away and held by the defendant in the commission of the theft of an automobile and further for the purpose of aiding the defendant escape arrest.”

Error is claimed to have been committed in allowing the Government to present extensive evidence of an armed robbery perpetrated by the defendant. However, the robbery occurred immediately before the abduction, and was relevant to prove the defendant’s motive for the crime. United States v. Weems, 398 F.2d 274 (4th Cir. 1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 1099, 89 S.Ct. 894, 21 L.Ed.2d 790 (1969). The robbery was part of the res gestae of the crime on trial.

The appellant also contends that the court erred in refusing to allow his counsel to ask certain questions on cross-examination of a government witness, for the purpose of impeaching credibility. The questions concerned two previous military offenses of being absent without leave. In criminal cases a witness may be cross-examined concerning prior convictions where the crime was “a felony, infamous crime, petit larceny or a crime involving moral turpitude * * United States v. Pennix, 313 F.2d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 1963). The offense of absence without leave is not such a crime. United States v. Tomaiolo, 249 F.2d 683, 692 (2nd Cir. 1957). The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-examination.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Gavin
328 N.W.2d 501 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1983)
Peterson v. Davis
551 F. Supp. 137 (D. Maryland, 1982)
United States v. Atkinson
429 F. Supp. 880 (E.D. North Carolina, 1977)
United States v. Alfred Harold Lossiah
537 F.2d 1250 (Fourth Circuit, 1976)
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Schiller Toto
529 F.2d 278 (Third Circuit, 1976)
United States v. Claude Weldon Truslow, A/K/A 'Gene'
530 F.2d 257 (Fourth Circuit, 1975)
Eddie Lawrence Phillips v. United States
518 F.2d 108 (Fourth Circuit, 1975)
Braswell v. State
306 So. 2d 609 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Collins v. Schoonfield
363 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Maryland, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
418 F.2d 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-raymond-leroy-frazier-ca4-1969.