Hazel v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
NEBEKER, Associate Judge:
This appeal is from a conviction of second degree burglary. Appellant raises two issues which he contends compel reversal. He urges that a gratuitous statement made by the trial judge constituted prejudicial error. He also contends that his right to cross-examine a prosecution witness was prejudicially curtailed. Having considered these arguments, and finding that no reversible error was committed, we affirm.
I. The trial court’s gratuitous comment did not constitute reversible error.
At trial, Arthur Tralcas, the complaining witness, testified that upon returning to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Alford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Quercia v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Starr v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- United States v. Herman Tyrone HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- State v. GillardOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Scull v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- State v. WilliamsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Jones v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.