United States v. John Frederick Weersing

Defendant was convicted of refusing to submit to induction in violation of 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462. We affirm.

The indictment alleged, in the words of the statute, that defendant “knowingly” refused to be inducted. Defendant contends that failure to allege that he acted “wilfully” renders the indictment materially defective.

We held in Graves v. United States, 252 F.2d 878, 882 (9th Cir. 1958), “that the word ‘knowingly’ in the statute here involved may not be as strong a word as ‘willfully’ * * *, but the use of either of these words requires proof of culpable intent. * * * ” We did not hold, as defendant suggests, that the word “wilfully” must appear ip the charge. On the contrary, although the indictment in Graves alleged that the defendant acted “knowingly,” the conviction was reversed only for lack of proof of culpable intent. If, as Graves holds, the word “knowingly,” in the statute, necessarily implies wilfulness, it is sufficient for the same purpose in a charge under the statute, absent any suggestion that defendant was misled or prejudiced in any way. United States v. Beatty, 350 F.2d 287 (6th Cir. 1965). Neither of the cases cited by defendant as direct contrary…