District of Columbia, May, 2005, State Case law

Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!

Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!

State Courts - District of Columbia - May 12 - May 19, 2005

Basnueva v. United States, No. 02-CF-875, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Motion to suppress was denied where officers were authorized, pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. ??50-1802(a) (2003), based on their observation that driver and defendant were not wearing seat belts, to stop vehicle defendant was riding in, and consent to search was voluntary as there was nothing to suggest coercion, fear, or intimidation was used.

Search Cases for Free

Davis v. United States, No. 03-CM-326, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In a misdemeanor sexual assault prosecution in which the victim was defendant's 11-year-old daughter, the victim was incapable of legally consenting to the sexual conduct, and the consent defense was not available.

Search Cases for Free

Fuller v. United States, No. 98-CF-1655, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Any error in providing the transcript of defendant's testimony from first trial to jury in second trial was harmless as two eyewitnesses who knew defendant identified him as the shooter, several other witnesses provided a motive for the shooting, and another witness said that defendant had confessed to shooting the victim, albeit in self-defense.

Search Cases for Free

Independence Mgmt. Co. v. Anderson & Summers, LLC, No. 03-CV-1105, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Where a contract for the sale of an apartment building was suspended while the tenants attempted for eight months to exercise their right to purchase the building, a reasonable time for closing was 60-70 days after the tenants terminated their contract with the seller.

Search Cases for Free

McNeely v. United States, No. 98-CF-924, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: The Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act of 1996, 43 D.C. Reg. 2156 (1996), was not void for vagueness and created a constitutional strict liability felony that required the government to show that defendant knew that he owned pit bulls that attacked a neighbor without provocation.

Search Cases for Free

Mesa v. United States, No. 02-CF-915, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 12, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Defendant waived his right to qualified interpreter when he had competent and skilled interpreters to assist him. Thus, he could not prevail on his argument that his motion to suppress should have been granted because trial court violated Interpreters for Hearing Impaired and Non-English Speaking Persons Act of 1987, D.C. Code Ann. ? 2-1901 et seq.

Search Cases for Free

In re J.L., Nos. 04-FS-832 and 04-FS-833, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 19, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating mother's parental rights and waiving her consent to adoption because, inter alia, children had been integrated into a stable and positive environment with adopting couple; she was currently unable to address children's physical, emotional and mental needs; and she was still addicted to drugs.

Search Cases for Free

In re K.A., Nos. 03-FS-1324, 03-FS-1332, 03-FS-1333, 03-FS-1420, 03-FS-1421, and 03-FS-1433, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 19, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Under the post-1993 version of D.C. Code Ann. ? 16-2320(c)(1) (2001), a trial court in a juvenile matter lacked the power, after committing a juvenile to agency custody, to reassert jurisdiction and direct a different disposition because of dissatisfaction with the agency's handling of its responsibilities under the disposition.

Search Cases for Free

Washington v. United States, No. 00-CF-414, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 19, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Attention-calling requirement under Fed. R. Evid. 803(18), which appeared consistent with D.C. law, was not adequate to permit admission of material as substantive evidence as defense counsel did not call expert's attention to pages of treatise from which counsel sought to read. Thus, trial court properly found that the evidence was not admissible.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal