Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Williams, v. United States
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 215 F.2d 35
Argued June 9, 1954.Decided June 24, 1954
Mr. Thomas J. Pearson, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Gerard J. O'Brien, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis A. Carroll and Victor W. Caputy, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was indicted, jointly with one Brown, for the
unauthorized use of a vehicle1 and for the grand larceny of an automobile, some vending machines, candy, etc.2 He was tried, received a directed verdict of acquittal upon the charge of grand larceny of the automobile, and was convicted on the first count and the remainder of the second count.
Appellant presents a number of points, principally that if he was guilty of any crime it was committed in Maryland and that the court should have granted a judgment of acquittal because it was not shown that he was present at the original taking of the automobile or other property or that he used the automobile in the District of Columbia. We think the proof was ample that appellant aided and abetted those who took the automobile and the property, and as an aider and abettor he was liable as a principal.3 The evidence showed that the planning and the taking were within the District of Columbia and that the appellant, in the District of Columbia, participated in various acts which were part, both preliminarily and subsequently, of the criminal venture. We find no error which affected the substantial rights of the appellant.
Affirmed.