United States v. Riddick Brown

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Riddick Brown

285 F.2d 528, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5616

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 9, 1961·No. 8205·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, convicted of theft of government property, complains of the court’s charge. He says that the court emphasized -the elements of the offense, particularly by defining the element of asportation. The District Judge was required to do so, and his definition of asportation was extremely pertinent in light of the emphasis by the defense upon *529 the fact that the property had not been removed from the Navy Yard.

There is no contention that the charge was in any way incorrect. We have reviewed the entire charge and find it to be fair, balanced and unobjectionable.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, convicted of theft of government property, complains of the court’s charge. He says that the court emphasized -the elements of the offense, particularly by defining the element of asportation. The District Judge was required to do so, and his definition of asportation was extremely pertinent in light of the emphasis by the defense upon *529 the fact that the property had not been removed from the Navy Yard.

There is no contention that the charge was in any way incorrect. We have reviewed the entire charge and find it to be fair, balanced and unobjectionable.

Affirmed.

United States v. Riddick Brown, 285 F.2d 528, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5616 (4th Cir. 1961).

Pincite

285 F.2d 528 (United States v. Riddick Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related