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

Raymond Smith, Jr., A/K/A Walter Raleigh Jeffries v. United States

Raymond Smith, Jr., A/K/A Walter Raleigh Jeffries v. United States, 406 F.2d 667 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1969)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1969-04-07
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • Although some question whether trial counsel “meaningfully invoked” the judge’s discretion, a review of the record reveals “the trial judge gave due consideration to the policy underlying Luck.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Raymond Smith, Jr., A/K/A Walter Raleigh Jeffries v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
7 opinions
SMITH v. UNITED STATES,406 F.2d 667(D.C. Cir. 1968)
Raymond SMITH, Jr., a/k/a Walter Raleigh Jeffries, Appellant, v. UNITED
STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 21440.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued September 10, 1968.
Decided December 13, 1968.
Certiorari Denied April 7, 1969.
See 89 S.Ct. 1315.
Mr. Richard S. Morey, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Frank H. Menaker, Jr., Washington, D.C. (both appointed by this court), was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. John S. Gill, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellee. Messrs. David G. Bress, U.S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Theodore Wieseman, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before BURGER, WRIGHT and TAMM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from convictions on three counts of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and carrying a dangerous weapon. The sole question raised on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion under Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151,348 F.2d 763(1965), by permitting the Government to cross-examine as to Appellant's 1963 petit larceny conviction.

We note preliminarily that Appellant's trial counsel did not ask for an on the recordLuck,supra,1hearing. We take this opportunity to reiterate that all treatment and consideration of theLuck-Gordon2issue must be on the record.3The failure to place the issue on the record unnecessarily raises the question of whether the trial judge'sPage 668discretion underLuck-Gordonwas meaningfully invoked.4

In any event, we have carefully canvassed the record, and from all that appears we are satisfied that the trial judge gave due consideration to the policy underlyingLuckand properly exercised his discretion under 14 D.C. Code § 305 (1967). Appellant took the stand and denied having stolen the car in question. This testimony directly conflicted with credible testimony offered by the prosecution, making Appellant's credibility the dispositive issue in the case. "[I]n those circumstances there was greater, not less, compelling reason for exploring all avenues which would shed light on which of the two witnesses was to be believed." Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 348,383 F.2d 936,941(1967), cert. denied,390 U.S. 1029,88 S.Ct. 1421,20 L.Ed.2d 287(1968). Petit larceny, the conviction admitted here, involves elements of "deceit, fraud, cheating, or stealing" and as such reflects "adversely on a man's honesty and integrity."Id. at 347,383 F.2d at 940. The conviction was properly received for the jury's consideration.

Affirmed.Page 669Page 951
  1. The question was considered by the court and counsel off the record in chambers (Tr. 276). ↩
  2. Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App. D.C. 343,383 F.2d 936(1967), cert. denied,390 U.S. 1029,88 S.Ct. 1421,20 L.Ed.2d 287(1968). ↩
  3. Id. at 346,383 F.2d at 939(1967). ↩
  4. SeeEvans Philson v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 114,397 F.2d 675(1968); Hood v. United States, 125 U.S. App.D.C. 16,365 F.2d 949(1966). ↩