Legal Opinion

Sams v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided January 8, 1969No. Nos. 4634 and 4635PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Each appellant, at separate trials, was convicted of disorderly conduct (jostling) in violation of D.C.Code 1967, § 22-1121 (4).1

Appellants argue that the informations upon which they were tried failed to state an offense in that they did not set forth the names of the alleged victims. However, this omission is not fatal. Young v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 414, 288 F.2d 398 (1961), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 919, 83 S.Ct. 734, 9 L.Ed.2d 725 (1963); Bush v. United States, D.C.App., 215 A.2d 853 (1966). In Bush we said that

An information or indictment is required to perform two primary…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Samuel E. Young v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1961
  2. Bush v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1966
  3. District of Columbia v. JordanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1967

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. King v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971
  2. Ingram v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API