TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Robert Abney

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert ABNEY, Appellant

United States v. Abney, 508 F.2d 1285 (4th Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 31, 1975
Docket
No. 73-2477
Judges
Butzner, Russell, Field
Citations
508 F.2d 1285

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Robert Abney was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for having killed Enoch Creek, Jr. At the time of the murder, both men were inmates at Lorton Reformatory. On appeal, Abney contends that the trial court erroneously permitted the government to ask one of its witnesses, Gary Johnson, whether Ab-ney requested Johnson to provide an alibi and lie on his behalf. We find no error and affirm.

The evidence at trial indicated that Abney and Creek had had a dispute over drugs and that Creek had threatened Abney with a knife on the afternoon of the murder. The evidence further indicated that the fatal fight had begun in a dormitory bathroom and that Creek died as a result of stab wounds following a severe beating administered by Abney. Abney contended on his behalf that he had killed Creek in self-defense. During the government’s case in chief, before the claim of self-defense had emerged, Johnson had been asked whether he remembered whether Abney had asked him to provide an alibi for him. Johnson gave an affirmative reply and stated upon further questioning that Abney had asked him to say that they had been playing cards or dominoes on the afternoon of the killing. It is to this line of questioning that Abney now objects.

We find no error in the questioning engaged in by the government. Testimony concerning an attempted fabrication of an alibi is itself some affirmative evidence of guilt. United States v. Ford, 237 F.2d 57 , 63 n. 10 (2nd Cir. 1956). Such testimony is thus probative evidence concerning a defendant’s state of mind which is properly presentable to a jury.

Accordingly, we dispense with oral argument and affirm the conviction.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1977: 11983: 11986: 119772026peak 1977 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Walter Reed Martindale, III790 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir. 1986)
  2. United States v. Gladys P. Jamar561 F.2d 1103 (4th Cir. 1977)
  3. United States v. Daniel B. Hughes716 F.2d 234 (4th Cir. 1983)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Walter Reed Martindale, III790 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir. 1986)
  2. United States v. Daniel B. Hughes716 F.2d 234 (4th Cir. 1983)
  3. United States v. Gladys P. Jamar561 F.2d 1103 (4th Cir. 1977)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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