From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medlin v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jul 23, 1953
207 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1953)

Opinion

Nos. 11484-11486.

Argued June 29, 1953.

Decided July 23, 1953. Petition for Rehearing Denied October 12, 1953.

Mr. James J. Laughlin, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. E. Riley Casey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty., and Arthur D. Schaffer and William J. Peck, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U.S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., at the time the record was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.


The appellants were indicted and convicted of assault "with a dangerous weapon, that is, shoes" on their feet. There was substantial evidence that each appellant kicked the complaining witness. He was seriously injured.

Appellants contend that shoes on feet are not dangerous weapons. We think it clear that they are, at least when they inflict serious injuries. Cf. Tatum v. United States, 71 App.D.C. 393, 110 F.2d 555. Appellants' other contentions do not require discussion.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Medlin v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jul 23, 1953
207 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
Case details for

Medlin v. United States

Case Details

Full title:MEDLIN v. UNITED STATES. (two cases). HOUSE v. UNITED STATES

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jul 23, 1953

Citations

207 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1953)
93 U.S. App. D.C. 64

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

The records of medical science are replete with case histories of persons being seriously wounded or killed…

U.S. v. Schoenborn

The cases interpreting § 113(c) attest to the truth of this assertion. Compare United States v. Martin, 783…