Legal Opinion
Rhyne v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided May 20, 1985No. 83-462PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
NEWMAN, Associate Judge:
Rhyne asserts that his convictions for burglary and grand larceny must be reversed because of evidentiary insufficiency and prosecutorial misconduct. Since we agree with his first contention, we need not reach his second one. We reverse, concluding that viewing the evidence in its light most favorable to the government, including all reasonable inferences, Miller v. United States, 479 A.2d 862, 864 (D.C. 1984), it is insufficient to sustain the convictions.
During June 1981, the victims (the Matthews) hired Rhyne to do certain home repair work. Some of this work…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Miller v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- William Henry Hiet, Jr. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
- Townsley v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1967
- Patten v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1968
- Hawkins v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1974
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re J.C.M.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985