Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Riddick Brown, 285 F.2d 528, 4th Cir. (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views1 page
    The defendant, Riddick Brown, appealed his conviction for theft of government property. Brown argued that the district court overemphasized elements of the offense in its jury instructions, particularly in its definition of asportation. However, the appeals court found that the district court was required to define elements of the offense for the jury. The appeals court also determined that the definition of asportation was relevant given Brown's argument that the property had not been removed from the Navy Yard. Upon reviewing the full jury instructions, the appeals court affirmed Brown's conviction, finding the instructions to be fair, balanced and appropriate.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1961-01-09 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 285 F.2d 528 Docket: 8205

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The defendant, Riddick Brown, appealed his conviction for theft of government property. Brown argued that the district court overemphasized elements of the offense in its jury instructions, particularly in its definition of asportation. However, the appeals court found that the district court was required to define elements of the offense for the jury. The appeals court also determined that the definition of asportation was relevant given Brown's argument that the property had not been removed from the Navy Yard. Upon reviewing the full jury instructions, the appeals court affirmed Brown's conviction, finding the instructions to be fair, balanced and appropriate.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views1 page

    United States v. Riddick Brown, 285 F.2d 528, 4th Cir. (1961)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant, Riddick Brown, appealed his conviction for theft of government property. Brown argued that the district court overemphasized elements of the offense in its jury instructions, particularly in its definition of asportation. However, the appeals court found that the district court was required to define elements of the offense for the jury. The appeals court also determined that the definition of asportation was relevant given Brown's argument that the property had not been removed from the Navy Yard. Upon reviewing the full jury instructions, the appeals court affirmed Brown's conviction, finding the instructions to be fair, balanced and appropriate.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    285 F.

    2d 528

    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


    v.
    Riddick BROWN, Appellant.
    No. 8205.

    United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.


    Argued Jan. 6, 1961.
    Decided Jan. 9, 1961.

    Len Holt, Norfolk, Va. (Joe Jordan and Ed Dawley, Norfolk, Va., on the
    brief), for appellant.
    Shanley Keeter, Asst. U.S. Atty., Richmond, Va. (mjoseph S. Bambacus,
    U.S. Atty., Richmond, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
    Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and
    HUTCHESON, District Judge.
    PER CURIAM.

    The defendant, convicted of theft of government property, complains of the


    court's charge. He says that the court emphasized the elements of the offense,
    particularly by defining the element of asportation. The District Judge was
    required to do so, and his definition of asportation was extremely pertinent in
    light of the emphasis by the defense upon the fact that the property had not
    been removed from the Navy Yard.

    There is no contention that the charge was in any way incorrect. We have
    reviewed the entire charge and find it to be fair, balanced and unobjectionable.

    Affirmed.

    You might also like