Frederick H. Jackson v. United States

246, 240, States, and United Before DANAHER WASHINGTON, Judges. (1952); 96 L.Ed. 288 Mills v. Wright, States, U.S.App.D.C. 131, 228 97 F.2d Kemble, 645 Cir., States v. 3 PER CURIAM: (1952). Although no 197 F.2d 316 appeal This from a is conviction of objection made, clear that was is the robbery. (1961). 22 D.C.Code 2901 § jury on an left the misinformed complaining witness, only the wit- essential element of the crime.1 alleged crime, that, ness to testified the The instruction on standing the other elements while she was at a crowded bus confusing. of stop, the offense was somewhat purse open. her fall she felt She jury: to the immediately read turned and saw holding her billfold in hand which by violence, “Whoever or force moving away open purse. against her by whether or sud resistance trial, argued appellant’s that, On counsel stealthy den ing, or snatch or seizure appellant actually since no one saw take fear, by putting or in shall take it, possibly the billfold had fallen from from the immediate actual or open purse the and he in the act of possession anything of of another returning it, which he did. value, guilty robbery.” 22 D.C. of § Code Appellant appeal on contends indictment, And lan the conviction must be be reversed language guage the similar to of the cause of an erroneous instruction on the statute,2 jury was read and to the sent essential element of intent. The statutory language room. The defines given jury definition intent the of robbery patterns several of behavior as following: the single sentence a convoluted and does you “I will now instruct as to clearly forth set the elements Regarding law on intent. intent prove case. the Government already which the in- Court has reading further of indictment you structed to be an element matter, replaced confused since offense of with which the conj disjunctives in with the statute charged, you defendant are unctives.3 that, you structed when thing purpose, you a on do that Recently, that the de we held intend to do.” jury pass fendant’s to have imposes clearly offense This on each element of the instruction was erroneous give proper duty judge in on the since commission of the crime of rob- though element, bery requires specific on each even structions intent de- by prive request property, counsel. defense victim made U.S.App.D.C. States, merely general Byrd 119 v. United some- (1965). purpose.” Screws v. F.2d 939 “on 342 See Morissette v. charges charge aggravated grand about 2. “The The rest of the January 30, District of 1963 within the misstatement the law on intent. The Columbia, force Frederick Jackson instruction suggestion identification contained resistance, against could convict violence snatching, stealthy any finding seizure and sudden and on intent whatsoever: fear, by putting beyond stole and took “If are convinced rea- person, you may immediate ac- from the doubt then sonable convict the possession J. Nooten- of Selma If find tual defendant this offense. boom, pocket property of about of the value the defendant take this did consisting $12.95; purse, one billfold book or this are con- money.” $10.95 $2.00 a reasonable doubt that value vinced defendant, as the identification of the requested attorney prosecuting 3. The it, you may the man who took then find ambiguities clarify created guilty.” the defendant language, his re- this difference quest was refused. 774 States, 65 S.Ct. ment should state offense precisely, In Williams more set forth rather than statutory provision under which omnibus (1942), Hag- rape charged. Compare case the accused

in which the trial court failed instruct ner v. United crime, cf the elements this court 76 L.Ed. 861 States, 749, stated: 82 United 369 Russell v. “ # * * 1038, (1962). 8 L.Ed.2d 240 always We been have proud under our law the ele- and that remanded. Reversed go up to ments which make a crime Judge (dissent- DANAHER, definitely are established. To insist ing) : jury rape that a told is be * * * meaning- not to demand is pointed Justice Mr. Holmes once out ” * * * less ritual. criminal are that while be statutes strictly, “They also are to Obviously, construed be if the tois function ef- given In fectively, construed with common that sense.”1 be must clear state- spirit we should view ment each element which the Govern- here, (1961),2 D.C.Code and elements, prove. ment 22-2901 § must as ex- charged pressed statute, hardly the indictment had are set by “stealthy snatch clarity Jackson permit forth seizure with sufficient * * * ing per perform duty intelligently. stole and took its from son, possession Compare actual of” States, immediate v. 89 Wheeler complaining witness, her billfold and 190 F.2d 663 money. my (Emphasis added.) People Pereles, In Cal.App.Supp. v. 125 way by ap view, all this case (1932). calls 12 P.2d 1093 pellate application review is a bit inadequacy of the instruc “common sense.” given requires tion in this case4 a re clearly not disclosed versal of the conviction and a remand “stealthy” had there been a seizure for a 52(b), new trial. Rule Fed.R.Crim. snatching that the accused “stole” P. complainant property 3 Appellant argues also question. States, In Neufield v. United charged indictment App.D.C. 73 118 F.2d 388 so defective be (1941), denied, that his conviction must cert. Ruben reversed and the indictment dismissed. 315 U.S. 62 S.Ct. 86 While we (1942), hold the indict 1199 L.Ed. we held that reversal, require ment proof would in itself we “[t]he sufficient that tak showed ing posses note that it leaves much immediate, desired be from actual completeness clarity. charged both and in had sion” indict n element of specific just Neufield, should be ment it was here. clearly Furthermore, Moreover, stated. indict- had indictment Scurry ting fear, person 4. See v. 120 shall take from 18,633, App.D.C.-, (No. possession F.2d immediate of an- or actual 15, 1965) April ; anything guilty value, decided States, Moore v. United of rob- other U.S.App.D.C. -, any bery, there- convicted (1965). imprisonment suffer shall than six nor more than less months Alford, 1. United v. States 274 U.S. years.” fifteen 597, 598, 71 47 S.Ct. This defendant could not been misled as to the offense with which charged, 2. The section reads: he Debrow, States violence, 377-378, “Whoever force or wheth- against er stealthy resistance or or sudden neither could put- snatching, jury. or seizure complainant’s confrontation. Defense counsel sudden “stole” that Jackson her: imports examination asked the ele- cross word That specific wallet. every “Probably intent. ment “Q. he do? What did Supreme conversion,” stealing ais hesitated, He “A. reached for- “ noted, adding, ‘To steal means to Court ward, and I reached forward possession away in lawful take took it from him.” keep the intention gumption, unusual With she followed the ” 4 wrongfully.’ pickpocket and said: counsel as his If testified good “Does it make feel argued,5 if to have said important people’s other “find of a claimed been some evidence purses ? ing” dropped pocketbook of a T “He said know what don’t returning to in the act of “finder” was talking about, lady.’ are of owner, evidence if there its ” cop said “I ‘Wewill see if a does’ con any to be circumstances motorcycle going policeman by. for a stealing, awith inconsistent strued as complainant The waved the officer might situ a different we pulled Jackson who over to started her. nothing No; like that ation. motorcycle running, gave policeman just did record, us see so let lady chase and followed on foot. happen. alley, culprit presently up entered an ran flight a ing stairs rear complaining her em- of at the a build- left of witness open In- and tried a door. Department of the The door ployment at the locked, cornered, culprit January 30, thus 4:30 P.M. terior about looking steps developed came down next evidence 1963. The placed at a Cadillac car. The officer typical The com- pickpocket situation. robbery large him under arrest for and asked plainant crowd wait- of why looking Jackson at the Cadil- ing of Four- he was block in the 700 a bus looking for “He said he was in lac. Jackson first stood teenth Street. Corvette,” car, aside, her, brother’s and as which moved front of then stepped officer testified. stepped he into line forward she again. cut off her move- twice Thus he no advance re- The defense submitted she of Just as front ment. quests Fed.R.Crim.P. for instructions. pocketbook door, fall felt her

bus open she provides hanging It had been at her side. may assign any party error “No as down and arm. She looked charge portion of or omission missing, discovered her billfold objects therefrom unless there- he Jackson with and saw she whirled around to consider retires before placing stating distinctly verdict, hand. He was her billfold in its objects and the matter to which pocket. That coat the wallet into his grounds objection.” of his pock- from her hand was about inches up lady etbook. braced jury, no instructed the “ back, thank exceptions said ‘I’ll take that were taken to the as ” given. 52(a) provides you.’ FED.R.CRIM.P. at the Jackson acted “stunned” returning it, original.) (Emphasis of he was the act Morissette say that this it to which he did.” Suffice surprising defense to what reference argued may more seem the counsel had appel- colleagues trial, My say: in that there was frivolous “On any- argued that, iota —that no one even an since whatever —not lant’s counsel it, possibly thing happened. actually Jack- the sort had of saw open purse take the stand. son did not the billfold had fallen * * * “Any error which does not the pointed of elements offense. He then rights affect shall be substantial disre- out: stemming garded.” Rule, sec- “Also, an additional element of this Code, tion 269 of the Judicial has its crime of which must be es- purpose: tablished a reasonable doubt judgment jus- substitute auto- “[T]o the Government in order to rules; pre- tify application conviction, matic is the of in- element upon arbi- review as a check serve tent. will now instruct as to trary and essential unfairness action law on intent. trials, at the time to “Regarding process perform func- make already Court has instructed giving fairly tion con- men be an bery element offense rob- multiplicity loopholes victed the the defendant highly minutely any rigid charged, you that, are instructed errors, especially detailed scheme pur- when do a procedure, engen- in relation to will pose, you do that which intend printed der and in a rec- reflect to do. ord.” “Now the intention that Rule, statute, predecessor The flected, re- doing per- has in a certain act Supreme Court, deep said the forming gath- act, a certain to be Congress concern in the to the course by words, ered his his actions and been,taking: had which the courts his conduct. Of it is great “So versal, the re- threat of possible for a man to read the many jurisdictions, that in secrets of the human mind and con- game criminal sowing trial became a for sequently case, in trial of this the error in the reversible rec- justice you, the administration of ord, only repeated have the same to gentlemen jury, ladies and the matching of when a new trial wits gather must seek the intention had been thus obtained.” persons and actions the words Nowadays, simply re- astute counsel testimony involved from in the giving judge frain from the trial case.” supply chance to some technical omission I believe court’s instruction was in his further instruc- elaborate explicit sufficiently light of the evi- supra. tions, despite Rule The jury very dence of I record. think “game” is then resumed this court. properly might here conclude—as it did colleagues So, my now would reverse pickpock- conclude—that Jackson was and order a new trial where man et, opened complainant’s pock- he had fairly every had been tried and where etbook, had her wallet he abstracted exactly one in the court room knew putting was in the it act of into judge, said, at issue. The trial he pocket his own coat when she looked upon called “the use only down hand saw his foot from ordinary ordinary common and the sense pocketbook her with her wallet in —and intelligence you employ would that hand. That he to convert intended determining any important other matter of that to his contents wallet own that occasion to decide beyond peradventure. use he was your everyday course of life.” stealing wallet, taking away it judge applicable read the statute right her without and with the intention a situation. He instructed as overwhelming- keep wrongfully, it respecting to the Government’s burden ly suggest I established. that none Rutledge explained 7. Id. at 6. Thus Mr. Justice 66 S.Ct. at 1245. Kotteakos 760, 90 L.Ed. 1557 naive could think otherwise. defendant could not have been misled prejudice. jury might Jack- ob- have believed that to his Justice Sutherland looking approval Cor- brother’s served —with obvious son —that alongside Cadillac had Court said “The that de- vette alley. goods “flavor” of fendant knew the to have been in the dead-end suggestion beggars any goods naturally implies that the entire case stolen disparagement observation had been fact stolen. The verdict do a of a that “when not be reversed account should trial obviously purpose, that which so technical and unsub- defect added.) (Emphasis I to do.” that. stantial.” intend believe instructions should I submit Here, “It how inconceivable [me] viewed, it read as a Thus whole. be misled could be [Jackson] * * to me credit that substan- seems seriously had */*9 if Jackson rights tial of this sought details, he could have further fairly if it that even denied. think pursued request particul a bill of judge here the trial could be said that shows as the record ars.10 fact is regarded erred, the error should be motion for a bill Jackson filed a as harmless.8 only May particulars to with Perhaps he two later. draw weeks suggestion Appellant’s the indict- really all decided that after to me seems frivolous. ment was defective put issue, just as this court of a accused that he stood knew Wigfall case, “pickpocket” v. in another charged “stealthy It was seizure.” States11 : Hagner lady’s In wallet. he “stole” the 427, 432, testimony “If the believed they complainant, as of the woman in "Grandi v. Court noted that they might do, well had a Fed. [6 Cir.] States every hypothesis save have excluded the defendant” dictment guilt Wigfall’s factual as a goods knowing they had possession of proven facts.” inference charge “failed to stolen my coi concern12 goods I do not A motion share were in so stolen.” fact nages. ground I would affirm. quash on the was denied Debrow, supra note 9. United States v. 318 U.S. Cf. Johnson v. 200, 201, at at 115. 74 S.Ct. case at 63 S. 10. Ibid. Frankfurter, con atCt. Mr. Justice curring, said: par- reviewing cases, “In criminal ticularly important appellate courts 12. Russell imaginatively re-live the trial whole L.Ed.2d 240 episodes in isola- and not to extract nothing to our its face do with on problem. has questions of tion abstract brought prosecution un- appeal procedure. To turn a criminal special involved a der a quest promotes into a for error more contempt Congress under an justice acquiesce in allege the ends than to which had failed to dictment subject question prosecution.” pertinency criminal low standards of inquiry. agree. under

Case Details

Case Name: Frederick H. Jackson v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Jun 4, 1965

Citation: 348 F.2d 772

Docket Number: 18344

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.