TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James S. Smith v. United States

James S. SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Smith v. United States, 306 F.2d 286 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 26, 1962
Docket
No. 16957_1
Judges
Edgerton, Washington, Bastían
Citations
306 F.2d 286113 U.S. App. D.C. 1261962 U.S. App. LEXIS 4395

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was indicted as an accessory after the fact to the robbery by Ernest Greene of property of Pauline Turner, and was convicted. D.C.Code § 22-106 (1961). On appeal, court-appointed counsel makes several contentions, the chief of which is that “a person who is present before, during, and after a crime may not be convicted as accessory after the fact.” The Government’s evidence was to the effect that appellant and Greene were together when Greene snatched Pauline Turner’s wallet, promptly handing it over to appellant; Greene and appellant then fled, and were separately apprehended. If this be believed, counsel urges, the Government should have charged appellant with advising, inciting, or conniving at the offense or aiding or abetting the principal offender.” D.C.Code § 22-105 (1961). Be that as it may, we think the present case is controlled by Section 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code (1958), which provides:

“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

*287 The statute makes no exception for persons who are present at the scene of the crime, or who may have participated in the planning or execution of the offense. We see no reason why any such exception should be read into the statutory language. Cf. Skelly v. United States, 76 F.2d 483, 487 (10th Cir.

1935);

White v. People, 81 Ill. 333 (1876).

We have reviewed all of the contentions made, and find no error affecting substantial rights.

A rmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1965: 11967: 11969: 11979: 11980: 11987: 21990: 11998: 219652026peak 1987 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Clark v. United States418 A.2d 1059 (D.C. 1980)
  2. Brooks v. State580 S.W.2d 825 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)
  3. Stevenson v. United States522 A.2d 1280 (D.C. 1987)
  4. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Vidal Galdon Aquino, Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ishmael Guillerma Reyes378 F.2d 540 (3d Cir. 1967)
  5. People v. Duty269 Cal. App. 2d 97 (1969)
  6. Jones v. United States716 A.2d 160 (D.C. 1998)

Most recent

  1. Jones v. United States716 A.2d 160 (D.C. 1998)
  2. State v. Collins495 S.E.2d 202 (S.C. 1998)
  3. People v. Broom797 P.2d 754 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990)
  4. Buckley v. State511 So. 2d 1354 (Miss. 1987)
  5. Stevenson v. United States522 A.2d 1280 (D.C. 1987)
  6. Clark v. United States418 A.2d 1059 (D.C. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
White v. People, 81 Ill. 333 (1876) 35
Skelly v. United States, 76 F.2d 483 (10th Cir. 1935) 27

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list