Hopper v. United States

142 F.2d 167, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2441
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 18, 1942·No. No. 10110·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant appeals from a judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for two years for violation of § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 894, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311, hereafter called the Act.

The pertinent portions of the indictment charge that appellant “having there[168] tofore registered under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, on or about the 22nd day of June, A. D. 1941, and within the District oí Arizona, did knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail and neglect to perform the duty required of him under and in the execution of said Act, and the rules and regulations made pursuant thereto, that is to say, that the said defendant, Robert Earl Hopper, having been theretofore classified by his local draft board at Prescott, Arizona, as a conscientious objector, and found fit for general service, did then and there, knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously fail and neglect to report as a conscientious objector for civilian work of national importance when notified so to do by his local draft board; * *

Appellant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that it did not “state facts sufficient to constitute a crime or offense.” The motion was denied. At the conclusion of the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the “indictment is fatally deiective and does not charge a public offense.” This motion was also denied.

To constitute a crime under § 11 of the Act, the accused man must “knowingly fail or neglect to perform [some] * * * duty required of him * * * under this Act.” 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311. In order to impose a duty on a registrant under the Act, the local Selective Service Board, hereafter called Board, must classify him in one of three general classes: (a) as a combatant for “induction” into the land or naval forces of the United States (Act § 4(a), § 3(a), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 304(a), § 303(a);1 (b) as one whose claim that he is a conscientious objector has been “sustained” by the Board for “induction” into the land or naval forces for noncombatant service (Act, § 5(g), 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 305 (g),2 and (c) as to sub-class of conscientious objectors whom the Board has “found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in .such [land or naval] noncombatant service,” to be “assigned to work of national importance under civilian direction,” (Act, § 5(g), footnote 2, supra).

As to conscientious objectors, it is apparent that they may be required to serve in noncombatant work either by induction into the land or naval forces or by assignment to work under civilian direction. Obviously, if a conscientious objector is “found” by the Board to be in class (b) [169] above described he cannot be assigned to serve under civilian direction, and violates no duty required of him under the Act if he fail to report for such service. Likewise, if in class (c) above described he cannot be required by the Board to be inducted to serve in the land or naval forces and if so ordered would violate no duty imposed by the Act if he failed to present himself for such induction.

The indictment charges only that appellant registered and was classified by the Board as a conscientious objector, found fit for general service. General physical fitness for service was determined prior to the classification as conscientious objector. If the registrant is found by the Board to be physically fit for general military service, the Board then proceeds to find whether he is a conscientious objector (1) to “combatant service” or (2) to both combatant and non-combatant military service.

Footnotes

Hopper v. United States, 142 F.2d 167, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2441 (9th Cir. 1942).

142 F.2d 167 (Hopper v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Hansen
158 F. Supp. 883 (D. Montana, 1958)
Denny v. United States
151 F.2d 828 (Fourth Circuit, 1945)
United States v. Abrahamson
10 Alaska 518 (D. Alaska, 1945)
Conway v. United States
142 F.2d 202 (Ninth Circuit, 1944)
Tudor v. United States
142 F.2d 206 (Ninth Circuit, 1944)
Lowrance v. United States
142 F.2d 192 (Ninth Circuit, 1943)
Hopper v. United States
142 F.2d 181 (Ninth Circuit, 1943)
Crutchfield v. United States
142 F.2d 170 (Ninth Circuit, 1943)