United States v. Gary Kinsey

505 F.2d 1354
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedOctober 31, 1974
Docket227, Docket 74-2014
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 505 F.2d 1354 (United States v. Gary Kinsey) 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. Gary Kinsey, 505 F.2d 1354 (2d Cir. 1974).

Opinion

MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial before Harold P. Burke, J., in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Gary Kinsey was found guilty of possession, with intent to distribute, of approximately 107 pounds of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, Kinsey claims it was error for the judge to have instructed the jury that the statutory definition of “marihuana,” which is, in relevant part, “the plant Cannabis sativa L.,” 21 U.S.C. § 802(15), encompassed two other forms of the plant. In United States v. Rothberg, 480 F.2d 534 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 856, 94 S.Ct. 159, 38 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973), this court rejected a similar argument directed against the predecessor of the present statute. Accord, United States v. Moore, 446 F.2d 448 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 909, 92 S.Ct. 1617, 31 L.Ed.2d 820 (1972). This case is apparently the first in this court to press the argument under the new law. Despite the 1970 revisions, we believe that the reasoning of Rothberg still controls, and that under the new law Congress intended to prohibit possession of all varieties of marijuana. Accord, United States v. Gaines, 489 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1974); contra, United States v. Collier, 14 Cr.L. 2501 (D.C.Super.Ct., Mar. 19, 1974). The Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Kinsey possessed marijuana. Appellant’s other contentions are without merit. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Roger D. Sanapaw
366 F.3d 492 (Seventh Circuit, 2004)
Taylor v. Commonwealth
984 S.W.2d 482 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1998)
United States v. Northrop
972 F. Supp. 183 (W.D. New York, 1997)
United States v. Joel Proyect
989 F.2d 84 (Second Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Michael P. Madkour
930 F.2d 234 (Second Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Maynard L. Turbyfill
914 F.2d 259 (Sixth Circuit, 1990)
People v. Hamilton
105 Cal. App. 3d 113 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
People v. St. Amour
104 Cal. App. 3d 886 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
Pueblo v. Ortiz Pepín
105 P.R. Dec. 547 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1977)
State v. Morrow
535 S.W.2d 539 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1976)
State v. Miles
545 P.2d 484 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1976)
United States v. Michael Lemoyne Kelly
527 F.2d 961 (Ninth Circuit, 1976)
Williams v. State
524 S.W.2d 705 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1975)
People v. Van Alstyne
46 Cal. App. 3d 900 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
United States v. Steve A. Walton
514 F.2d 201 (D.C. Circuit, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
505 F.2d 1354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-gary-kinsey-ca2-1974.