# United States v. Raymond Moore

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · October 23, 1973 · 486 F.2d 1139

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9459990

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America v. Raymond MOORE, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** October 23, 1973
- **Citations:** 486 F.2d 1139; 158 U.S. App. D.C. 375
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Bazelon
- **Judges:** Leventhal, Bazelon, Wright, McGowan, Tamm, Lev-Enthal, Robinson, MacKinnon, Robb, Wilkey
- **Cited by:** 61 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9459990

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the judgment in Powell rested on the overlap in the views of “four members of the Court” who held that Powell’s acts of public drunkenness “were punishable without question” and the view of Justice White that Powell’s acts “were punishable so long as the acts h…
- noting that "there is definitely no Supreme Court holding" of addiction as a defense
- rejecting the assertion that "punishment of addict possessors is neither a reasonable nor a necessary means to achieve [the] goal" of reconciling the need to eliminate drug traffic with the need to rehabilitate addicts
- characterizing such an interpretation as "an amplification and extrapolation of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eighth Amendment advanced in the admittedly confused and divergent opinions in Robinson v. California and Powell v. Texas "

## Opinion text

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
The views on which I would resolve the issues in this case are set forth in my separate opinions in United States v. Brawner, 153 U.S.App.D.C. 1 , 471 F.2d 969, at 1022-1034 (1972) (en banc) and United States v. Alexander & Murdock, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 371 , 471 F.2d 923, at 948-951 (1972). On the issue of guilt or innocence, Judge Wright’s views are closest to my own. I cannot, however, accept his view that the addiction/responsibility defense should be limited to the offense of possession. I would also permit a jury to consider addiction as a defense to a charge of, for example, armed robbery or trafficking in drugs, to determine whether the defendant was under such duress or compulsion, because of his addiction, that he was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Although I disagree with the Court’s decision on the underlying responsibility issue, given that decision, the views on NARA and on sentencing expressed in Part V of Judge Leventhal’s opinion do seem useful. For the purpose of decision, therefore, I join in Part V of that opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9459990. Public record. Not legal advice.