United States v. Riddick Brown
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Per curiam
The defendant, convicted of theft of government property, complains of the court’s charge. He says that the court emphasized -the elements of the offense, particularly by defining the element of asportation. The District Judge was required to do so, and his definition of asportation was extremely pertinent in light of the emphasis by the defense upon the fact that the property had not been removed from the Navy Yard.
There is no contention that the charge was in any way incorrect. We have reviewed the entire charge and find it to be fair, balanced and unobjectionable.
Affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Anthony Stephen CabbellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1970
- Robert Douglas Rainwater v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- Robert Douglas Rainwater v. United States of America, No. 71-1524 Summary Calendar. (1) Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. OfCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971