# Smith v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · April 30, 1980 · 414 A.2d 1189

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648757

## Case

- **Full name:** Albert B. SMITH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 30, 1980
- **Citations:** 414 A.2d 1189; 1980 D.C. App. LEXIS 290
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Newman, Chief Judge, and Kern and Ferren, Associate Judges
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9648757

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “the trial court’s decision as to competency will be sustained even when it proceeds without a voir dire where the transcript reveals intelligible comprehension [by the witness] in terms of answering the questions that were asked” (internal quotation marks omitted)…

## Opinion text

NEWMAN, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I join fully the opinion of the court. However, in light of the concurrence of Judge Kern, I add the following comments. In Johnson v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 354 (1979), this court discussed at length the doctrine of judicial discretion and appellate review thereof. One central thesis of that opinion was that in exercising discretion, the trial judge must be guided by legal criteria and principles. Id. at 365 , citing among other authorities, Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 496 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 441 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). Likewise, in reviewing the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, the appellate court is constrained by similar legal criteria and principles. This constraint is mandated to avoid appellate review of the trial court's exercise of discretion by what has been referred to as “a form of ill-tempered appellate grunting. .” Rosenberg, Judicial Discretion of the Trial Court, Viewed from Above, 22 Syracuse L.Rev. 635, 639 (1971). The opinion of our concurring colleague, I submit, demonstrates a failure to observe this constraint. It points to no rule of law, legal principle or criteria which the trial judge erroneously applied in making the choice he did. To nonetheless say that the trial court abused its discretion, without pointing to the rule of law, legal principle, or criteria the court erroneously applied, appears to be an improper manner to review the trial court’s exercise of discretion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648757. Public record. Not legal advice.