The government may in a single information (as the grand jury may in an indictment) charge all of the prohibited acts in the conjunctive and under such charge proceed to prove any one or more of the acts. Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 214, 216 (1949); Joyce v. United States, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 133-34, 454 F.2d 971, 976-77 (1971); Morrison v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 330, 331-32, 365 F.2d 521, 522-23 (1966); Joyner v. United States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 76, 77, 320 F.2d 798, 799 (1963); and District of Columbia v. Hunt, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 159, 163-64, 163 F.2d 833, 837-38 (1947). Accordingly, the trial court erred in requiring an election by the government.

As a general rule, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction may not be challenged on appeal where no motion for a judgment of acquittal has been made at the close of all the evidence. Hall v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 168 F.2d 161, cert. denied, 334 U.S. 853, 68 S.Ct. 1509, 92 L.Ed. 1775 (1948); Ladrey v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 155 F.2d 417, cert. denied, 329 U.S. 723, 67 S.Ct. 68, 91 L.Ed. 627 (1946); Foster v. United States, D.C.App., 290 A.2d 176 (1972); Richardson v. United States, D.C.App., 276 A.2d 237, 238 (1971); Wesley v. United States, D.C.App., 233 A.2d 514 (1967); McRae v. United States, D.C.App., 222 A.2d 848, 849 (1966); Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C. Mun. App., 65 A.2d 214 (1949). It has been held, however, that the rule is not controlling in cases tried without a jury.

We need not decide whether the trial judge's characterization of this testimony as hearsay was correct, since unobjected-to hearsay may be competent evidence which the jury may consider. Bullock v. United States, D.C.App., 243 A.2d 677 (1968); Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 214 (1949); Tirrell v. Osborn, D.C.Mun.App., 55 A.2d 725 (1947); Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 890, 897-909 (1961). There is the further contradiction as to who was responsible for route deliveries and management of appellee's vehicles.

In the instant case, however, there is much other testimony from which a jury could find that appellant was guilty of the offense, and, in fact, the testimony here objected to was clearly not crucial to the Government's case below. It should be pointed out, in addition, that the judge in his instructions cautioned the jury to consider the question of the witness's opportunity to observe that about which he testified. Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 214, 216 (1949); Tirrell v. Osborn, D.C.Mun.App., 55 A.2d 725, 726 (1947); and see Annot., 79 A.L.R.2d 890, 897-909 (1961). 99 U.S.App.D.C. at 395, 240 F.2d at 633.

The detective admitted that appellant had ample money with him to pay for the slacks, and had not left the store when arrested. It has consistently been held that a defendant who introduces testimony after denial of his motion for acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case, thereby waives such motion and cannot make the ruling the subject of review on appeal. Hall v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 168 F.2d 161, 164, 4 A.L.R.2d 1193, cert. denied, 334 U.S. 853, 68 S.Ct. 1509, 92 L.Ed. 1775; Ladrey v. United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 155 F.2d 417, cert. denied, 329 U.S. 723, 67 S.Ct. 68, 91 L.Ed. 627; Jenkins v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 146 A.2d 444; Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 214. Nevertheless, we have considered the merits of the appeal.

However, the correctness of the denial of that motion will not be reviewed on this appeal in view of the fact that in offering evidence subsequent to the denial of the motion, defendant waived any rights he may have had regarding that motion. Hall v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 34 A.2d 631; Boyer v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 40 A.2d 247, reversed on other grounds, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 202, 150 F.2d 595, 166 A.L.R. 209; Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 65 A.2d 214. See also Hall v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 168 F.2d 161, 4 A.L.R.2d 1193, certiorari denied 334 U.S. 853, 68 S.Ct. 1509, 92 L.Ed. 1775.