Wagstaff v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Wagstaff v. United States

198 F.2d 955, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3264

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 1952

Docket11366

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 F.2d 955 (Wagstaff 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

Wagstaff v. United States, 198 F.2d 955, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3264 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty of the crimes of armed robbery and carrying a pistol without a license. D.C.Code (1940) §§ 22-2901, 22-3202, 22-3204. After canvassing the record and the contentions of the appellant, we find no reversible error. The trial court’s instructions to the jury were clear, adequate and wholly fair to the defendant. Appellant’s trial counsel advised the court that he had no request for any further charge and no exceptions whatever to the charge as given. Alleged errors in the admission of evidence were not in any instance of a character to warrant reversal; in most instances, in fact, no objection was raised during the trial to the testimony now challenged. See Guy v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 89, 107 F.2d 288. After conviction, appellant’s present counsel moved for a new trial, stating that he wished to offer the testimony of a psychiatrist that at the time of the offense appellant had been of unsound mind. The trial court declined to hear this testimony on the ground that “if it is a matter of defense, it should have been pleaded at the trial of the case.” Prior to the trial the court had granted appellant’s motion that he be examined by three *956 psychiatrists, one of whom was of his own choosing. All three concluded that he was of sound mind, and no claim was made during the trial that appellant had been of unsound mind at the time of the offense. Under these circumstances the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hear the proffered testimony. See Saunders v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C., 197 F.2d 685. The judgment of the District Court will' accordingly be

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty of the crimes of armed robbery and carrying a pistol without a license. D.C.Code (1940) §§ 22-2901, 22-3202, 22-3204. After canvassing the record and the contentions of the appellant, we find no reversible error. The trial court’s instructions to the jury were clear, adequate and wholly fair to the defendant. Appellant’s trial counsel advised the court that he had no request for any further charge and no exceptions whatever to the charge as given. Alleged errors in the admission of evidence were not in any instance of a character to warrant reversal; in most instances, in fact, no objection was raised during the trial to the testimony now challenged. See Guy v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 89, 107 F.2d 288. After conviction, appellant’s present counsel moved for a new trial, stating that he wished to offer the testimony of a psychiatrist that at the time of the offense appellant had been of unsound mind. The trial court declined to hear this testimony on the ground that “if it is a matter of defense, it should have been pleaded at the trial of the case.” Prior to the trial the court had granted appellant’s motion that he be examined by three *956 psychiatrists, one of whom was of his own choosing. All three concluded that he was of sound mind, and no claim was made during the trial that appellant had been of unsound mind at the time of the offense. Under these circumstances the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hear the proffered testimony. See Saunders v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C., 197 F.2d 685. The judgment of the District Court will' accordingly be

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F.2d 955, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 3264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagstaff-v-united-states-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack