Opinion ID: 307739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defense of misleading information

Text: 8 The trial court, relying on United States v. Powers, 413 F.2d 834 (1st Cir.) cert. denied, 396 U.S. 923, 90 S.Ct. 256 (1969), held that a registrant who claims to have been misled simply by the Selective Service form, into not seeking a conscientious objector classification, does not have a defense to a charge of failing to report for induction. Appellant argues that the proper legal standard is whether the registrant's reliance on the misleading information is reasonable. 1 Cf. United States v. Lansing, 424 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1970). We find no necessity for reaching this question, for the record shows that appellant was not in fact misled by the questions contained in the form 150. During counsel's examination of appellant the following occurred: 9 Q. How did you get the opinion that you didn't think that the Catholic church applied, was that the basis of what it said in the form or the basis of your understanding you received from others? 10
11 Q. When you saw the form, did the form do anything to you to change your opinion? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did it reinforce your opinion? 14 A. I had a set opinion before I really answered the form-I had the opinion that said that the Catholic church could not be used as a basis previously. It had been set already, very strongly. 15 This is merely one of several occasions when appellant indicated that his misconception concerning eligibility for a conscientious objector classification was based on his own prior opinion. 2 Therefore, even if we were willing to adopt the rule suggested by appellant we would be constrained to hold that there had been a failure to prove that he was misled by the form. 3 16