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

James H. White, Jr. v. United States

James H. White, Jr. v. United States, 377 F.2d 948 (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1967)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1967-04-14
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: An indictment of appellant for unauthorized use of a vehicle, in violation of D.C.Code § 22-2204, was dismissed by the District Court December 9, 1965. Upon consideration of the record relating to the dismissal we conclude that it was with prejudice. Nevertheless, a few days thereafter, December 15, 1965, appellant was again indicted for the same offense. 1 His motion to dismiss the second indictment due to the bar created by the earlier dismissal with prejudice was denied. We think it should have been granted. The dismissal with prejudice constituted an adjudication which barred another prosecution for the same offense.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed James H. White, Jr. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 18 opinions

WHITE v. UNITED STATES,377 F.2d 948(D.C. Cir. 1967)

James H. WHITE, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20542.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 3, 1967.

Decided April 14, 1967.

Page 949

Mr. Noel H. Thompson, Washington, D.C. (appointed by this court) for appellant.

Mr. Arthur L. Burnett, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U.S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and Donald S. Smith, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before FAHY, McGOWAN and TAMM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

An indictment of appellant for unauthorized use of a vehicle, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-2204, was dismissed by the District Court December 9, 1965. Upon consideration of the record relating to the dismissal we conclude that it was with prejudice. Nevertheless, a few days thereafter, December 15, 1965, appellant was again indicted for the same offense.¹His motion to dismiss the second indictment due to the bar created by the earlier dismissal with prejudice was denied. We think it should have been granted. The dismissal with prejudice constituted an adjudication which barred another prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Oppenheimer,242 U.S. 85,37 S. Ct. 68,61 L.Ed. 161; District of Columbia v. Weams,208 A.2d 617,619(D.C. Mun.App.). Appellant's conviction under the second indictment, now before us on this appeal, accordingly must be set aside and the case remanded for dismissal of that indictment.

It is so ordered.Page 950Page 230

See Mann v. United States, 113 U.S.App. D.C. 27,304 F.2d 394, where dismissal of the indictment was granted explicitly without prejudice and reindictment was held proper. ↩