United States v. Collura

139 F.2d 345, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2277
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedDecember 21, 1943
Docket135
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 139 F.2d 345 (United States v. Collura) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Collura, 139 F.2d 345, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2277 (2d Cir. 1943).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted upon an indictment charging wilful failure to perform a duty required of him under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 311, to-wit, failure to report for induction into the United States Army. In response to an order of his local draft board to report for induction, the appellant appeared at the induction station at the appointed hour but stated that he refused to be inducted unless given a guarantee against compulsory vaccination after he was in the army. He took the stand, and from his testimony it appears that he has long entertained a sincere conviction in opposition to compulsory vaccination. The district judge refused to consider the validity of the Army Regulations regarding vaccination and rightly restricted the issue to whether or not the appellant reported at the induction center prepared to be inducted into the army without qualification. Obviously the duty to report for induction means more than putting in an appearance at the induction station. The selectee must not only appear but must be ready to go through the process which constitutes induction into the army. Admittedly the appellant did not report for induction, but reported for the purpose of making a bargain with the military au *346 thorities and entering the army only if the terms agreed upon were satisfactory to his personal views as to vaccination. The trial was conducted with complete fairness and the appeal is without merit. Criticism of the indictment as insufficient to inform the appellant of the charge he had to meet is wholly groundless. Zuziak v. United States, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 140, 141.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. James Robert Harstad
487 F.2d 565 (Ninth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Daniel Clifford Whittenburg
462 F.2d 581 (Tenth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Alfred Edward McGee
460 F.2d 1287 (Seventh Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Murray
335 F. Supp. 792 (D. Minnesota, 1970)
Simuel Brent Schutz, Jr. v. United States
422 F.2d 991 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
Michael Waldo Simmons v. United States
406 F.2d 456 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Gutknecht
283 F. Supp. 945 (D. Minnesota, 1968)
Jeffries v. United States
169 F.2d 86 (Tenth Circuit, 1948)
United States v. Anderson
328 U.S. 699 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Estep v. United States
327 U.S. 114 (Supreme Court, 1946)
United States v. Anderson
60 F. Supp. 649 (W.D. Washington, 1945)
Smith v. United States
148 F.2d 288 (Fourth Circuit, 1945)
In re Herman
56 F. Supp. 733 (N.D. Texas, 1944)
United States ex rel. Russell v. Lawrence
55 F. Supp. 768 (S.D. California, 1944)
Billings v. Truesdell
321 U.S. 542 (Supreme Court, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 F.2d 345, 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-collura-ca2-1943.