From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berry v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 20, 1940
113 F.2d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1940)

Summary

In Berry v. United States, 1940, 72 App.D.C. 229, 113 F.2d 183, we applied this test to the two offenses of assault with intent to rape and threatening bodily harm, and held that they were distinct, citing Gavieres v. United States and Sims v. Rives.

Summary of this case from District of Columbia v. Buckley

Opinion

No. 7480.

Argued April 8, 1940.

Decided May 20, 1940.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

William G. Berry was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

James J. Laughlin, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Edward M. Curran, U.S. Atty., and Charles B. Murray, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and VINSON, Associate Justices.


Appellant pleaded guilty of assault with intent to rape. He was sentenced on July 14, 1939. On July 24, he filed notice of appeal. The Criminal Appeals Rules provide that "an appeal shall be taken within five (5) days." Appellant urges that we may waive that requirement. We need not determine whether we have that power, for we have here no occasion to exercise it.

Rule III, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723a; 292 U.S. 661, 662, 54 S.Ct. xxvii; also appended to Rule 34 of this court.

Just after the assault, appellant told the prosecuting witness that he would kill her if she complained to her father. For this he was prosecuted and convicted of threats to do bodily harm, before he was indicted for assault with intent to rape. The only question which he seeks to raise on this appeal is whether the earlier prosecution bars the present one. Clearly it does not. Assault to rape and threatening bodily harm are distinct offenses. Though both may be committed simultaneously, either may be committed without the other. Therefore, even if both these prosecutions were based on the same acts, appellant would not be twice put in jeopardy for the "same offense." Moreover, the two prosecutions are based on different acts.

D.C. Code, Tit. 6, § 44.

Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 31 S.Ct. 421, 55 L.Ed. 489; Sims v. Rives 66 App.D.C. 24, 84 F.2d 871, certiorari denied 298 U.S. 682, 56 S.Ct. 960, 80 L.Ed. 1402.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Berry v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
May 20, 1940
113 F.2d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1940)

In Berry v. United States, 1940, 72 App.D.C. 229, 113 F.2d 183, we applied this test to the two offenses of assault with intent to rape and threatening bodily harm, and held that they were distinct, citing Gavieres v. United States and Sims v. Rives.

Summary of this case from District of Columbia v. Buckley
Case details for

Berry v. United States

Case Details

Full title:BERRY v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: May 20, 1940

Citations

113 F.2d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1940)
72 App. D.C. 229

Citing Cases

Ingram v. United States

* * * where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the…

Hicks v. District of Columbia

for the possession and illegal sale of liquor by stating: Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386 (1958), 78…