United States v. Orman Philip Day

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Orman Philip Day

442 F.2d 1034, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10310

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 10, 1971

Docket26816_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 442 F.2d 1034 (United States v. Orman Philip Day) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Orman Philip Day, 442 F.2d 1034, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10310 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was found guilty of refusing induction into the armed services in violation of 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462. On appeal he asserts that the district court erred in refusing to hear his testimony concerning his reasons for refusing induction, and that the local board gave erroneous reasons for denying his claim for a selective conscientious objector classification.

In a prosecution for refusal to submit to induction the government need only show an awareness of the legal obligation and a deliberate purpose not to comply. United States v. Boardman, 419 F.2d 110 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1124, 25 L.Ed.2d 398 (1970); United States v. Rabb, 394 F.2d 230 (3rd Cir. 1968). Evidence of appellant’s good faith in challenging a law he believed to be wrong was proper *1035 ly held to be inadmissible. Harris v. United States, 412 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1969).

Appellant’s request for classification as a conscientious objector was based upon selective opposition to specific wars rather than an opposition to participation in war in any form. The classification was properly denied. Gillette v. United States, 400 U.S. 955, 91 S.Ct. 351, 27 L.Ed.2d 263 (1971).

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was found guilty of refusing induction into the armed services in violation of 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462. On appeal he asserts that the district court erred in refusing to hear his testimony concerning his reasons for refusing induction, and that the local board gave erroneous reasons for denying his claim for a selective conscientious objector classification.

In a prosecution for refusal to submit to induction the government need only show an awareness of the legal obligation and a deliberate purpose not to comply. United States v. Boardman, 419 F.2d 110 (1st Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 991, 90 S.Ct. 1124, 25 L.Ed.2d 398 (1970); United States v. Rabb, 394 F.2d 230 (3rd Cir. 1968). Evidence of appellant’s good faith in challenging a law he believed to be wrong was proper *1035 ly held to be inadmissible. Harris v. United States, 412 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1969).

Appellant’s request for classification as a conscientious objector was based upon selective opposition to specific wars rather than an opposition to participation in war in any form. The classification was properly denied. Gillette v. United States, 400 U.S. 955, 91 S.Ct. 351, 27 L.Ed.2d 263 (1971).

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F.2d 1034, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-orman-philip-day-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack