Document: 355 U.S. 273 78 S.Ct. 299 2 L.Ed.2d 264 Knut Einar HEIKKINEN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 89. Decided Jan. 6, 1958. Mr. David Rein, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. J. F. Bishop, respondent. Justice WHITTAKER delivered opinion Court. 1 This case involves legality convictions petitioner, an alien previously ordered deported, (1) willful failure to depart from United States, and (2) make timely application in good faith travel or other documents necessary his departure, within six months date final order deportation. Section 20(c) Immigration Act 1917, 39 Stat. 890, as amended, 57 553, 64 1012, 8 U.S.C. (1946 ed., Supp. IV) § 156(c),* provided, pertinent part, that '(a)ny against whom deportation is outstanding * who shall willfully fail refuse States a period such deportation, enactment Subversive Activities Control 1950, whichever later, upon conviction be guilty felony, imprisoned not more than ten years *.' It above-quoted provisions are involved here. 3 Petitioner, native Finland, went Canada 1910 later acquired Canadian citizenship. He entered 1916 and, except several foreign trips, has since resided A was him on April 9, 1952, under October 16, 1918, 40 41 1008, 54 673, 1006, 137,1 by reason membership Communist Party 1923 1930.2 4 On November 10, 1953, petitioner indicted, two counts, District Court Western Wisconsin. The first count charged with order. second departure Upon trial before jury he convicted both counts. sentenced imprisonment term five Count 1, imposition sentence suspended until completion service 1. Appeals affirmed. 240 F.2d 94. We granted certiorari. 353 935, 77 813, 758. 5 Petitioner challenges judgments number grounds, but view we take it consider only ground, namely, evidence insufficient support verdict either count. 6 criminal case. therefore prosecution adduce sufficient finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt. no less true when defendant alien. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 580, 586, 72 512, 517, 96 L.Ed. 586. crucial element crime 'did States' 1952. (Emphasis supplied.) thorough review record discloses any country willing, period, receive petitioner.3 There can 'the willing identified.' Spector, 343 169, 171, 591, 593, 863. cannot said there jury's thus verdict, judgment thereon must fall. 7 Government argues failed some country, him, if had done so might have been able identify, time prescribed, which could go. While this argument relation mainly involves, brings us consideration of, adequacy 2. 18, nine days after entry officer charge Naturalization Service at Duluth, Minnesota, request Director Chicago, sent Inspector Maki interview obtain 'personal data, usually called passport data.' admitted that, interview, 'told (petitioner) (he) instructed get personal history; going prepare Passport Data form, would (be Chicago where it) considered (the) down towards obtaining document (petitioner's) case,' common procedure cases. furnished information requested, forwarded Maki, 21, Chicago. 30, received letter Office which, reciting directing petitioner's 25, 1952,4 said: 'Arrangements effect your pursuant being made completed you will notified present yourself deportation.' continued, summarizing amended,5 concluded: 'Therefore, recognize importance making every effort may prescribed quotation above (Immigration amended).' 9 February 12, investigator interviewed took written signed statement put trial. In corroborated Maki's acknowledged receipt stated, substance, applied because relying mentioned, 'been waiting instructions immigration authorities' 'from should start passport, visa passport.' Petitioner's further recited never 'to execute application' refused nor apply documents, wanted cooperate (with Attorney General get) Finland 10 Is States'? believe not. deportee, sense 20(c), to, absence evidence, inference permissible statute, 'bad purpose' '(non-)justifiable excuse,' like. Cf. Murdock, 290 389, 394, 223, 225, 381; Spies 317 492, 497, 498, 63 364, 367, 87 418. informed purpose, procuring 'passport data' send 'would case.' Moreover, Duluth office, told plainest language, arrangements completed, himself Surely justified plain meaning those simple words, acted 'willfully'—i.e., without 'justifiable excuse'—in doing so, until, least, they were way countermanded, period. last paragraph drew attention good-faith efforts language did terms negate, fairly implicitly negated, earlier letter, because, plainly itself factual setting failing prescribed. also 11 Reversed. That part: '(Sec. 1) member one following classes excluded admission into States: '(2) Aliens who, time, members classes: '(C) affiliated (i) (64 1006.) Now U.S.C.A. 1182(a)(28)(C). 'Sec. 4. (a) Any entering thereafter, aliens enumerated section 1(2) Act, shall, warrant General, taken custody deported manner provided 5, 1917. applicable mentioned irrespective their States.' 1008.) 1251(a)(6)(C), (d). 1252(e). asked hearing specify prefer go, answered: 'To my Finland.' Deportees authorized designate choice 20(a) th e now §§ 1252(a, c), 1253(a, b). expiration issue obtained Canada. But irrelevant whether during covered indictment, fact, counsel objected ground show Canada's willingness accept 'within months' (after 1952), concerned indictment.' was, order, but, rather, ordering Finland. summary read follows: 'In connection reminded (§ amended) declares 'who connive conspire, action, designed prevent hamper purpose preventing hampering place required felony. *"

Category: 1