TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Gary Wayne Black

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Wayne BLACK, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Black, 456 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 16, 1972
Docket
No. 71-2729
Judges
Hamlin, Duniway, Goodwin
Citations
456 F.2d 12971972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10711

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Appellant herein was convicted after a jury trial of a violation of 50 U.S.C. App. Section 462 (Refusal to Submit to Induction).

Appellant’s sole contention is that his physical pre-induction examination disclosed that he had a disqualifying condition.

1

The medical report in appellant’s selective service file, which was admitted in evidence, set out appellant’s physical condition. The record discloses ample evidence that appellant’s condition was diagnosed and that two Army doctors found appellant acceptable for military service. In his instructions, the district judge instructed the jury that “the determination made by the doctor was made on a sufficient basis and therefore the determination of the propriety of the order to report for induction” was not before the jury, and that as a matter of law the appellant was under an obligation to report for induction.

We agree.

In United States v. Shunk, 438 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir.), where the appellant offered testimony at the trial concerning his physical condition, which testimony was rejected, the court stated:

“There being no indication of arbitrary action or deficiency in prescribed procedure in connection with the described examination and subsequent inspection, the record provides a basis in fact for the determination that defendant was physically fit to be inducted. See Vasilj v. United States, 425 F.2d 1134 (9th Cir. 1970).

“Absent some highly unusual circumstance, not present here, this left no room for further inquiry at the trial concerning defendant’s physical fitness to be inducted. . . . The trial court did not err in rejecting the offered testimony.”

In this case the record shows there was a basis in fact for the finding of acceptability. We see no error in the action of the District Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

1

. Army medical standards provide for rejection when examination reveals an undiagnosed mass or enlargement of the testicle or epididymis. Alt 40-501, section 2-14m (2).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1973: 119732026peak 1973 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Douglas Alan Wilson478 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1973)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Douglas Alan Wilson478 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1973)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Shunk, 438 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir. 1971) 20
Vasilj v. United States, 425 F.2d 1134 (9th Cir. 1970) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list