Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

252 F.2d 862

Docket No. 14074.

Hamilton v. United States

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Feb. 17, 1958.

Decided March 6, 1958.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1958-03-06

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1958-03-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1979

4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

40195819601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Mr. Sol M. Alpher, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant.

¶2Mr. Fred L. McIntyre, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Joel D. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

¶3Before Bazelon and Burger, Circuit Judges, and Jackson, a Senior Judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.*

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6A jury convicted appellant of manslaughter. There was evidence from which the jury could have found the following facts: At about 9:20 P.M. on January 5, 1956, appellant and the woman with whom he had been living for four years were standing on a street car loading platform on a street fairly active with traffic. Appellant struck the woman in the face several times and she fell upon the street car tracks. While she was trying to get up, a taxicab approached and, although appellant did not attempt to stop it, it did stop short and drive around the other side of the loading platform. Before the woman could get off the tracks, appellant struck her again. This time she lay motionless. Appellant still made no attempt to halt the approaching traffic or to help the woman to a place of safety. He merely walked away. Another approaching taxicab ran over her and inflicted injuries from which she died a few days later.

¶7On this appeal appellant urges that death resulted, not from his blows, but from the independent intervening injuries inflicted by the taxicab. We think that in the total circumstances of this *863case the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of appellant’s malicious conduct.

¶8Appellant’s other contentions disclose no error affecting substantial rights.

¶9Affirmed.

/252/f2d/862 · .json · Public domain