Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

267 F.2d 691

Docket No. 14867.

Smith v. United States

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued April 24, 1959.

Decided June 4, 1959.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied June 23, 1959.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1959-06-04

Cited by 2 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1962

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Seelig v. United States · Ellis v. United States · Jones v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1959-06-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*692Bazelon, Circuit Judge, dissented.

¶2Mr. Robert B. Hirsch, Washington, D. C., (appointed by this Court) for appellant.

¶3Mr. Paul J. Spielberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., of the Bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

¶4Before Prettyman, Chief Judge, and Bazelon and Burger, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6This is an appeal from conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon, a razor, in the course of a fight with the complaining witness. The grounds for appeal are (1) that the jury was not specifically charged that intent to commit injury with the razor was an essential element of the crime1 (no request for such specific charge was made); and (2) that the government’s argument to the jury was prejudicially improper. We have examined the record and conclude the appeal should be dismissed as improvidently granted. Court appointed counsel ably presented appellant’s contentions.

¶7Appeal dismissed.

¶12BAZELON, Circuit Judge

¶13(dissenting).

¶14I would affirm the judgment of conviction.

¶15I do not join in the dismissal of this appeal because I do not think the division of this court which granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis acted improvidently in determining that a question was presented which was not plainly frivolous within the meaning of Ellis v. United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060. Cf. Young v. United States, - U.S.App.D.C. -, 267 F.2d 692, and my statement in Jones v. United States, - U.S.App.D.C. -, 266 F.2d 924.

/267/f2d/691 · .json · Public domain