Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Queen v. Postell, 513 A.2d 812 (1986)

Citation
Queen v. Postell, 513 A.2d 812 (1986)
Parent Document
Queen v. Postell, 513 A.2d 812 (1986)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1986-08-05

Other Sections in This Document (80)

Full Text

684 chars
The court did tell the jury that the “malice ... may be proven by circumstantial evidence, that is, it may be inferred from the acts of the defendant or by direct evidence and that is, it may be proven by statements either written or oral made by the defendant.” Here the only written statement in evidence was appellant’s letter to Postell informing him that the rent deduction was unacceptable and objecting to the lock he had placed on the door. As to any oral statement, no testimony was offered by the plaintiffs describing in any detail what Queen actually said in the crucial telephone conversation. All that the jury learned about it was provided when Rowell was on the stand: