Edwards v. United States, 172 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1949). · Go Syfert
Search
Edwards v. United States, 172 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir. 1949). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Paul J. Heideman v. United States (cadc, 1958-11-17) · Strongest negative: Commonwealth v. Rose (pa, 1974-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1952 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1952 1989 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" Commonwealth v. Rose (2×)
Pa. · 1974 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Edwards v. United States, 172 F.2d 884 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Paul J. Heideman v. United States (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1958 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Edwards v. United States, 1949, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 310 , 172 F.2d 884 (drunkenness relevant in trial for housebreaking and larceny) ; United States v. Bowen, C.C.D.C.1835, 24 Fed.Cas. p. 1207, No. 14,629 (burglary); but see Proctor v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 341 , 177 F.2d 656 (drunkenness irrelevant in trial for unauthorized use of an auto). .
Edwards
v.
United States
9907.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Feb 9, 1949.
172 F.2d 884
Mr. Leonard C. Collins, of Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. Robert M. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and William S. McKinley and John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Edgerton, Miller, Holtzoff.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a conviction of housebreaking and larceny. There was testimony strongly tending to show that appellant was drunk when the acts were done. The court said in its charge to the jury: “You must find, before you can acquit the defendant Edwards, that the defendant was so intoxicated that she was incapable of forming an intent.” We find no other language in the court’s charge that seems to us to explain away the quoted statement. We think it erroneous. Incapacity need not be proved or found in order to entitle a defendant to an acquittal. It is true that no proof or finding of capacity is ordinarily necessary to support a conviction. But where a specific intent is essential to the crime charged, and evidence is introduced that might create a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was sober enough to be capable of forming this intent, the jury must be instructed to acquit if they have such a doubt. Davis v. State, 54 Neb. 177, 74 N.W. 599. Cf. Holloway v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 3, 148 F.2d 665.

Reversed.