Carlin Constantine Venus v. United States

287 F.2d 304 Carlin Constantine VENUS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 16961. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Dec, 24, 1960, Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1961. Hayden C. Covington, Brooklyn N.Y., Kenneth A. Barwick, Lemon Grove, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Robert J. Jensen, Minoru Inadomi, Los Angeles, Cal., Asst. U.S. Attys., for appellee. Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and BOLDT, District Judge. BARNES, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction for knowingly failing and neglecting to keep the local draft board advised of the address where mail would reach him at all times. The indictment charged an offense in violation of Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 462. 1 2 Jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C.A. 3231 and Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 462. Jurisdiction of this court to review the appeal from the judgment rests on the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.A. 1291 and 1294. 3 In order to review at least one of the questions presented on this appeal it is necessary to briefly summarize some of the past history of appellant's entanglement with the…

Appellant appeals from a judgment of conviction for knowingly failing and neglecting to keep the local draft board advised of the address where mail would reach him at all times. The indictment charged an offense in violation of Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 462.

Jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 3231 and Title 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 462. Jurisdiction of this court to review the appeal from the judgment rests on the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291 and 1294.

In order to review at least one of the questions presented on this appeal it is necessary to briefly summarize some of the past history of appellant’s entanglement with the provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. Appellant registered with the Local Board No. 140 in San Diego County, California, on September 15,1948. During the years 1950 and 1951 appellant was classified at *306 various times in classifications I-A and III-A. On November 19, 1951, appellant returned to the local board a completed conscientious objector form, in which he claimed that he was, by reason of his religious training and belief, conscientiously opposed to…

(dissenting).

I am unable to agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that the trial court did not err in failing to grant appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all of the evidence and renewed after the verdict of the jury. In Bartchy v. United States, 319 U.S. 484 , 63 S.Ct. 1206 , 87 L.Ed. 1534 , the Supreme Court stated that the regulation which placed upon appellant the duty to keep his local draft board advised at all times of the address where mail would reach him “is satisfied when the registrant, in good faith, provides a chain of forwarding addresses by which mail, sent to the address which is furnished the board, may be by the registrant reasonably expected to come into his hands in time for compliance.” The crucial period in this prosecution, as stated in the trial court’s instructions to the jury, is the month of February 1955. The letter of June 7, 1954, directed by the appellant to the draft board, and quoted in the majority opinion, stated that appellant’s employer was the same one as the one previously reported to the draft board, and that appellant could be reached “within one or two days” at his San Diego address. The…