Walter L. Stogner v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Walter L. Stogner v. United States

229 F.2d 513, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 172, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3741

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1955

Docket12275-12278_1

StatusPublished

This text of 229 F.2d 513 (Walter L. Stogner 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

Walter L. Stogner v. United States, 229 F.2d 513, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 172, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3741 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from judgments entered upon appellant’s convictions of four separate offenses of forgery and uttering, the indictments being laid under section 22-1401, D.C.Code 1951. His defense was insanity. Counsel appointed by this court to conduct the appeal has ably presented the several grounds for reversal which might be thought worthy of consideration. One is that the court did not charge the jury on the issue of sanity in the manner now required in this jurisdiction by Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862. But the correctness of the charge as approved prior to Durham is not disputed; and we there held, and repeated in Jordan v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 217 F.2d 670, that the Durham rule was not to have retroactive *514 application. Other errors urged were not reserved for review by trial counsel and are not of a character, in the context of the record as a whole, to require us to exercise a discretion to notice them. Compare Jackson v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 198 F.2d 497, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 858, 73 S.Ct. 96, 97 L.Ed. 666, with Payton v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 222 F.2d 794, 797-798.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from judgments entered upon appellant’s convictions of four separate offenses of forgery and uttering, the indictments being laid under section 22-1401, D.C.Code 1951. His defense was insanity. Counsel appointed by this court to conduct the appeal has ably presented the several grounds for reversal which might be thought worthy of consideration. One is that the court did not charge the jury on the issue of sanity in the manner now required in this jurisdiction by Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862. But the correctness of the charge as approved prior to Durham is not disputed; and we there held, and repeated in Jordan v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 27, 217 F.2d 670, that the Durham rule was not to have retroactive *514 application. Other errors urged were not reserved for review by trial counsel and are not of a character, in the context of the record as a whole, to require us to exercise a discretion to notice them. Compare Jackson v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 198 F.2d 497, certiorari denied 344 U.S. 858, 73 S.Ct. 96, 97 L.Ed. 666, with Payton v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 222 F.2d 794, 797-798.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 F.2d 513, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 172, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-l-stogner-v-united-states-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack