U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1964

Oshel Eugene Kittrell v. United States

Oshel Eugene Kittrell v. United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided July 16, 1964 · Brown, Per Curiam, Wisdom
334 F.2d 242; 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4694 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Jack T. Niland, El Paso, Tex., for appellant., M. H. Raney, Asst. U. S. Atty., El Paso, Tex., for appelle

Oshel Eugene Kittrell v. United States

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

On the submission of this case, our study showed that the principal question was the correctness of the charge to the jury on the issue of insanity. As that matter was then under consideration by the Court en banc in Carter v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 314 F.2d 386, further action was expressly deferred pending decision of that case. On December 12, 1963, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. Pursuant to that request, we ordered the appeal dismissed on December 24, 1963. Then on December 30, 1963, Appellant filed a motion to reinstate *243 his appeal which we have granted. On the merits we affirm.

The charge under attack conforms to the requirements of Howard v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 602, Rev’d on Rehearing, 5 Cir., 232 F.2d 274, and Davis v. United States, 1895, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499, and the equal division of the Court in Carter v. United States does not call for any different result. There is obviously no merit to the point on speedy trial.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.