TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Gary Kinsey

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gary KINSEY, Appellant

United States v. Kinsey, 505 F.2d 1354 (2d Cir. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 31, 1974
Docket
Nos. 227, Docket 74-2014
Judges
Mulligan, Danaher, Feinberg
Citations
505 F.2d 1354

Opinion — Mulligan

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.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1975: 41976: 31977: 11980: 21990: 11991: 11993: 11997: 11998: 12004: 119752026peak 1975 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Northrop972 F. Supp. 183 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)
  2. Taylor v. Commonwealth984 S.W.2d 482 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998)
  3. United States v. Steve A. Walton514 F.2d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
  4. United States v. Michael Lemoyne Kelly527 F.2d 961 (9th Cir. 1976)
  5. United States v. Michael P. Madkour930 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1991)
  6. Williams v. State524 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Roger D. Sanapaw366 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2004)
  2. Taylor v. Commonwealth984 S.W.2d 482 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998)
  3. United States v. Northrop972 F. Supp. 183 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)
  4. United States v. Joel Proyect989 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1993)
  5. United States v. Michael P. Madkour930 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1991)
  6. United States v. Maynard L. Turbyfill914 F.2d 259 (6th Cir. 1990)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Rothberg, 480 F.2d 534 (2d Cir. 1973) 42
United States v. Moore, 446 F.2d 448 (3d Cir. 1971) 46
United States v. Gaines, 489 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1974) 33

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