William Green v. United States

D.C. Circuit

William Green v. United States

307 F.2d 678, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 341, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4568

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 5, 1962

Docket16871_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 F.2d 678 (William Green 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

William Green v. United States, 307 F.2d 678, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 341, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4568 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty on two of nine counts charging him and a co-defendant with theft and possession of stolen mail matter. 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (1958). The trial court’s refusal to direct an acquittal as to appellant was clearly correct since the evidence left a distinct issue as to illegal possession of recently stolen property which was for the jury to resolve. Appellant’s contention that the trial court should have given an instruction on circumstantial evidence is also without merit. Defense counsel in the trial court did not object to the court’s refusal to give such an instruction, and later expressed satisfaction with the instructions that were given. Viewing the record as a whole, the trial court’s decision to withhold an instruction on circumstantial evi[679]*679dence could not reasonably be noted by this court under Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C. See Cogdell v. United States, No. 16696, D.C.Cir., 307 F.2d 176.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty on two of nine counts charging him and a co-defendant with theft and possession of stolen mail matter. 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (1958). The trial court’s refusal to direct an acquittal as to appellant was clearly correct since the evidence left a distinct issue as to illegal possession of recently stolen property which was for the jury to resolve. Appellant’s contention that the trial court should have given an instruction on circumstantial evidence is also without merit. Defense counsel in the trial court did not object to the court’s refusal to give such an instruction, and later expressed satisfaction with the instructions that were given. Viewing the record as a whole, the trial court’s decision to withhold an instruction on circumstantial evi[679]*679dence could not reasonably be noted by this court under Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C. See Cogdell v. United States, No. 16696, D.C.Cir., 307 F.2d 176.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 F.2d 678, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 341, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-green-v-united-states-cadc-1962.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack