Opinion · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Willie L. Loveless v. United States

260 F.2d 487

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1958-10-09
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

reversing conviction and remanding for new trial where, after closing argument, trial court decided to instruct jury on new charge and defense counsel protested lack of argument concerning new charge

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Willie L. Loveless v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 23 opinions

LOVELESS v. UNITED STATES,260 F.2d 487(D.C. Cir. 1958)

Willie L. LOVELESS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 14529.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued September 30, 1958.

Decided October 9, 1958.

Mr. Curtis P. Mitchell, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. John A. Shorter, Jr., Roy M. Ellis, and Gordon J. Myatt, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before BAZELON, FAHY and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried for second degree murder and convicted of manslaughter. At the close of testimony, appellant requested a charge on manslaughter but the court ruled that he would not give such a charge but would charge on second degree murder, which he did. After the arguments had all been concluded, however, the court advised counsel he had changed his mind and considered the manslaughter charge essential. At that point¹appellant's counsel protested that "neither of us, in view of what your honor said, argued with respect to manslaughterPage 488at all." The appellant was thus precluded from arguing to the jury that even the lesser offense was not supported by the evidence.

Rule 30 in pertinent part provides:

"The court shall inform counsel of its proposed action upon the requestsprior to their arguments tothe jury* * *." Fed.R.Crim.P.30,18U.S.C.A. (Emphasis added.)

In the circumstances of this case the least that could have been done to comply with this important rule was to afford counsel an opportunity to re-open and argue the issue of manslaughter. Jackson v. State, 1949,216 Ark. 341,225 S.W.2d 522, 15 A.L.R.2d 484; Fox v. Commonwealth, 1924,202 Ky. 41,258 S.W. 950; cf. Clancy v. City of Joplin, Mo.Ct.App. 1915, 181 S.W. 120 (civil negligence case). The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.Page 489Page 677

Previously, when the manslaughter charge was refused, the defense preserved its objection to the court's ruling. ↩