Schuman M. Rivers v. United States, 330 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Schuman M. Rivers v. United States, 330 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: William R. Gaskins v. United States (cadc, 1967-12-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William R. Gaskins v. United States (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1967 · confidence medium
Compare Castle v. United States, supra note 5, 120 U.S.App.D.C. at 400, 347 F.2d at 494 ; Rivers v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 375 , 376, 330 F.2d 841, 842 (1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schuman M. RIVERS, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
17950_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
May 7, 1964.
330 F.2d 841
Mr. John A. Shorter, Jr., Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant., Mr. Anthony A. Lapham, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Joel D. Blackwell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Fahy, Burger, McGowan.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of violating the federal narcotic laws, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 174. His defense was insanity.

Testimony at the trial tended to prove that appellant was a drug addict who also suffered from a mental disease related to the commission of the offenses by reason of his addiction. But there was also significant testimony that he was not suffering from a mental disease related to the offenses. Thus, the issue of insanity was for the jury to decide. Appellant’s contention that his motion[*842] for acquittal on the ground of insanity-should have been granted must be rejected.

On the issue of insanity appellant requested an instruction on irresistible impulse; but the requested instruction was in terms which would have placed this issue before the jury as an independently controlling alternative test of mental responsibility, inconsistent with our decision in McDonald v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 124-125, 312 F.2d 847, 851-852 (1962).

Finding no error in the respects above .discussed, or otherwise, the judgment is

Affirmed.