Raymond Smith, Jr. v. United States
Raymond SMITH, Jr., A/K/A Walter Raleigh Jeffries, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from convictions on three counts of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and carrying a dangerous weapon. The sole question raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion under Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151 , 348 F.2d 763 (1965), by permitting the Government to cross-examine as to Appellant’s 1963 petit larceny conviction.
We note preliminarily that Appellant’s trial counsel did not ask for an on the record Luck, supra, 1
hearing. We take this opportunity to reiterate that all treatment and consideration of the Luck-Gordon 2
issue must be on the record.
3
The failure to place the issue on the record unnecessarily raises the question of whether the trial judge’s *668 discretion under Luck-^Gordon was meaningfully invoked.
4
In any event, we have carefully canvassed the record, and from all that appears we are satisfied that the trial judge gave due consideration to the policy underlying Luck and properly exercised his discretion under 14 D.C. Code § 305 (1967). Appellant took the stand and denied having stolen the car in question. This testimony directly conflicted with credible testimony offered by the prosecution, making Appellant’s credibility the dispositive issue in the case. “[I]n those circumstances there was greater, not less, compelling reason for exploring all avenues which would shed light on which of the two witnesses was to be believed.” Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343 , 348, 383 F.2d 936, 941 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1029 , 88 S.Ct. 1421 , 20 L.Ed.2d 287 (1968). Petit larceny, the conviction admitted here, involves elements of “deceit, fraud, cheating, or stealing” and as such reflects “adversely on a man’s honesty and integrity.”
Id.
at 347, 383 F.2d at 940 . The conviction was properly received for the jury’s considerattion.
Affirmed.
1
. The question was considered by the court and counsel off the record in chambers (Tr. 276).
2
. Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343 , 383 F.2d 936 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1029 , 88 S.Ct. 1421 , 20 L.Ed.2d 287 (1968).
3
.
Id.
at 346, 383 F.2d at 939 (1967).
4
.
See Evans & Philson v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 114 , 397 F.2d 675 (1968) ; Hood v. United States, 125 U.S. App.D.C. 16, 365 F.2d 949 (1966).
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(Although some question whether trial counsel “meaningfully invoked” the judge’s discretion, a review of the record reveals “the trial judge gave due consideration to the policy underlying Luck.”)
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.