John W. Richardson v. United States
403 F.2d 574
D.C. Cir.
1968
Check Treatment

*1 might influenced have been penalty.8

passing death mention consummated, statutory rape had been real in the case

and the issue perpetrator. question com

On that

pelling. prejudice, the deci- we find no affirmed.

sion below is RICHARDSON, Appellant,

John W. America,

UNITED STATES of Appellee.

No. 21049. Appeals

United States Court of

District of Columbia Circuit. April

Argued 1968.

Decided June 1968. Bailey States, supra (dissenting opinion Faliy, J.). v. note 5 *2 guilty charged

found him on count one, guilty simple on assault count guilty two on three. count witness Snowden tes- tified that held another up gunpoint him at and took $98 his wallet. testified Snowden, recently been who had con- gambling offense, victed of owed him gambling he debt which had sev- $270 unsuccessfully tried to eral times collect. reaching into He admitted removing wallet $138 gun. having but His denied story mother corroborated his gambling testified Snow- gambler. den was known appeal ground of this is the The chief appellant’s request court’s denial following instruction: for standard introduced that the Evidence has defendant believed alleged Fitzpatrick (appointed to take he Mr. Richard A. court), Washington, C., for have stolen. D. L’Hommedieu, appellant, Mr. J. Samuel an- If a takes court), Washing- (appointed Jr. good other, faith be- but so does C., ton, D. on brief for to take lief that lant. property, specific intent essential (appointed by Mr. Ronald D. West court), Washington, C.,D. also entered prove The Government must appearance appellant. an for reasonable doubt Kelley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Mr. James E. specific intent to steal. acted with the Atty., G. Messrs. David with whom you doubt whether If Q. Nebeker, Bress, Atty., Frank U. S. spe- acted with a brief, Atty., on Asst. U. S. you steal, find cific appellee. guilty.1 him Atty., Terry, U. S. Mr. John A. Asst. filed, en- also time the record I. appellee. appearance for tered is not A defendant Judge, Edger- Bazelon, Chief Before unless he has a Judge, Senior Circuit Tamm, ton, of another. Jackson v. Judge. Circuit U.S.App.D.C. 160, (1965). Viewing F.2d 772 Judge: EDGERTON, Circuit Senior favorably most as we charged appeáls the denial dangerous (count one), instruction, assault favorable believed carrying two), good dan- (count weapon faith entitled he was three). jury money. (count gerous weapon spe If did not have Bar Section Junior tions gen- No. Instruction The court Jury erally Ass’n, Instruc- Criminal D.C. Bar intent. cific intent. We therefore was entitled to an instruction requested taking property should have been since given2 reason could evidence the ably find that he lacked the government’s position to be seems robbery. However, specific intent that no instruction on a claim having that he took the admitted necessary unless the le- defendant had a *3 person without gally right property enforceable to the petit appellant of could not be specific depends upon took. But intent larceny, precludes tak a forceful which mind, upon legal a state of not fact. taking physical ing. “Force” includes jury If the finds that be- of another of money, lieved it himself entitled to the Jack resistance. there is properly cannot States, U.S.App.D.C. 123 v. son United requisite specific robbery. intent for (1966). 278, 260, Thus 276, F.2d 262 359 246, Morissette v. United 342 U.S. to instruct refusal the trial court’s (An 240, (1952) 72 S.Ct. 96 L.Ed. 288 larceny petit not error. genuine unfounded but that belief nega- his assault contest taken had been does not abandoned specific intent). appeal. reverse tives in this We conviction of conviction urges government The affirm Reversed. policy reasons, claiming ance for that robbery of this conviction would Judge (dissenting): TAMM, Circuit encourage takings violent ma- disagree of the action policy that suc frustrate of the law reversing this of jority the conviction in gambler may cessful not his win recover robbery. The of for the crime nings taking loser. But “The up- its conclusion bases carrying away of of an that “[a] on the statement of without other District Columbia robbery guilty of unless right D.C. is a misdemeanor. to do so” specific take the to intent of ed.) (1967 22-1211. Code § The (Emphasis another.” specific section can be violated its majority opinion turns self-help intent, provides to a deterrent in upon of record facts back rejecting winning gambler unanimously jury found in that case principle intent turns did, proved upon of mind the actor’s state doubt, specific in- have a objective fact. complain- property of the take the tent to opinion majority leans witness. II. upon trial of the declination court contends charge jury de- to the in his to include in- lesser instructed on the should have request in- counsel’s fense taking property without offenses of clude relating per- struction larceny. petit he believed son which reading of the A had a to take. in offense included lesser charge jury complete establishes it is struction is coun- of the defense the substance Burcham v. justified the evidence. regard repeated- request 284, in this 283, sel’s U.S.App.D.C. States, 82 majority’s agree ly (1947). of the 761, We covered. Indicative 762 F.2d 163 Cal.Rptr. 466, Butler, 569, Steele, 55 150 Wash. v. 65 Cal.2d v. 2. Accord: State (Sup.Ct.1967); rule Butts 421 P.2d 703 742 273 P. Commonwealth, involving 133 S.E. 145 Va. forceful in cases liquidated (1926); in A.L.R. collected cases color under intent 2d 1227. is that g., People e. See, finding, instructions, disregard jury pre- from an complete of the abundance length light appellant’s ex- caution in version out hereafter some I set knowledge- again of the learned and cerpts from the charge jury commenting on the fifth essential ele- able of ment evidence offense of stated “it the need for necessary an es- in order to establish was so taken and carried convict for sential robbery. supplied) to steal it." meticulously outlining to the After (Tr. 31.5). Thereafter the court in de- relating aspects jury of the law various tail as to manner convict, necessary the facts proving means neces- judge set forth Acting upon other these and instruc- constitute jury by tions the its vote unanimous *4 307). enumer- (Tr. fifth element appellant guilty found this judge “that the de- ated inescapable It is from the carried and fendant took such they verdict found that this so, away and with do by putting lant force and violence and steal it.” complaining in fear took from the wit- Thereafter value, any ness enlarged detailed to do so and with intent to steal jury, em- complete inability it. I confess to un- throughout possession phasizing derstand how the can ration- acquired by force or have been alize a this conviction complaining by “putting or violence did * * *” in fear. witness “specific have prop- intent to take the phraseology perfect when letter In erty of another.” To reach this conclu- fifth element essential returned to majority must, regret sion the I re- add, arbitrarily ignore capriciously, the fifth essen- establish iterated: “To and affirmative offense, it is neces- element of the tial finding point. on this so taken and that the purpose of the criminal courts funda- carried mentally protect organized society and with ravages of criminal conduct. it. no steal There can It me seems to of the kind action pur- lawful is taken embodied in consti- carry- pose. At time of complete perversion tutes pur- of that away, pose and reduces trial to an exercise specific intent to de- had solely exoneration of a prive the witness of defendant, in which the welfare of soci- convert and to ety completely ignored. It is unfortu- the taker.” it to use benefit of abiding nate judicial community for the law (Tr. 309). (Emphasis supplied) apply visionaries must their well obviously gujlty intended theories to logical Although appear most it would felons. had the elements by the adequately above covered affirm the conviction.