From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daigle v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Oct 3, 1957
248 F.2d 608 (D.C. Cir. 1957)

Opinion

No. 13785.

Argued September 13, 1957.

Decided October 3, 1957. Writ of Certiorari Denied January 6, 1958. See 78 S.Ct. 344.

Mr. William H. Collins, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Messrs. Lewis Carroll and Joel Blackwell, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, WASHINGTON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.


Appellant was indicted in eight counts. The alleged offenses involved two transactions. As to each transaction the indictment charged, in successive counts, (1) embezzlement, (2) larceny, (3) forgery of a check, and (4) uttering of a forged check. He was convicted on the first count and given a sentence of imprisonment, which was suspended.

Appellant urges error in the failure of the court to require the prosecution to elect as to counts, in the denial of motions for judgment of acquittal, in the court's instructions to the jury, in the return by the jury of an inconsistent and antagonistic verdict, and in the court's action in receiving a verdict of guilty on one count and directing a verdict of not guilty on another count. We have carefully considered the contentions, pressed upon us vigorously by counsel, but we find no error affecting substantial rights of the appellant.

See United States v. Daigle, 149 F. Supp. 409 (D.C. 1957).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Daigle v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Oct 3, 1957
248 F.2d 608 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
Case details for

Daigle v. United States

Case Details

Full title:Emile J. DAIGLE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

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

Date published: Oct 3, 1957

Citations

248 F.2d 608 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
101 U.S. App. D.C. 286

Citing Cases

Woods v. State

The opinion included the following footnote: “Nothing in this opinion is intended to decide the proper…

U.S. v. Sturm

This is not a circumstance in which conviction on one count necessarily precludes conviction on another…