Case Name: Scott McQUIRTER, Jr., Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee
Court: District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1962-07-20
Citations: 182 A.2d 888
Docket Number: No. 2959
Parties: Scott McQUIRTER, Jr., Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
Judges: Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 182
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
Scott McQUIRTER, Jr., Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
No. 2959.
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued April 30, 1962.
Decided July 20, 1962.
Thurman L. Dodson, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
John R. Hess, Asst. Corp. Counsel, with whom Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Prin. Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After a nonjury trial appellant was found guilty of violation of our disorderly conduct statute, in that he congregated with others on a public street and refused to move on when ordered by a police officer to do so. Code 1961, § 22-1121.
Appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The evidence was conflicting but the trial court resolved that conflict against appellant. The government's evidence amply supported the conviction.
Appellant claims there was error in permitting the arresting officer to testify that appellant, in protesting against the officer's order to move on, said: "I have got a suit against a No. 10 right now." No objection was made to this testimony, but when on cross-examination appellant was asked if in fact he had filed such a suit, his counsel objected and the objection was sustained. Assuming, but not holding, that the statement was inadmissible, review of the record convinces us that its admission could have resulted in no substantial prejudice to appellant.
Finally, appellant argues that the trial court was biased and prejudiced against him. There is nothing in the record to sustain this charge.
Affirmed.
. Apparently this referred to a suit against a police officer attached to No. 10 precinct.