Court Opinion

ID: 9447758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:43:50.17334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:11.058888
License: Public Domain

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that the trial court did not err in failing to grant appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all of the evidence and renewed after the verdict of the jury. In Bartchy v. United States, 319 U.S. 484, 63 S.Ct. 1206, 87 L.Ed. 1534, the Supreme Court stated that the regulation which placed upon appellant the duty to keep his local draft board advised at all times of the address where mail would reach him “is satisfied when the registrant, in good faith, provides a chain of forwarding addresses by which mail, sent to the address which is furnished the board, may be by the registrant reasonably expected to come into his hands in time for compliance.” The crucial period in this prosecution, as stated in the trial court’s instructions to the jury, is the month of February 1955. The letter of June 7, 1954, directed by the appellant to the draft board, and quoted in the majority opinion, stated that appellant’s employer was the same one as the one previously reported to the draft board, and that appellant could be reached “within one or two days” at his San Diego address. The letter was enclosed in an envelope which bore the return address of 650 — 11th Street, San Diego, California, which appellant had previously furnished to the draft board. This address was also the address of appellant’s parents, which had been furnished to the draft board long prior to June 7, 1954 as an address where appellant could always be reached. The clerk of the local draft board testified that the appellant had given his parents’ address as the place where he could always be reached. The clerk further testified that the appellant was specifically requested not only to give the address where he lived or resided but also to give a reference of someone — his parents in this case — who would know his address or through whom mail would reach him. The clerk further testified that the return address on the outside of the envelope referred to the address of appellant’s parents. In explaining why the notation “see letter attached” was made on the cover sheet of appellant’s draft board file opposite appellant’s Modesto address, the clerk stated “I made that entry for the simple reason that if any mail were returned to us from the Modesto address that I would look for and try and contact him through his San Diego address.” No notices were sent by the local draft board to the appellant at either the Modesto or the San Diego address during the month of February 1955. The record is likewise clear that no effort was made by the draft board at any time to contact appellant’s parents or his employer. In fact, no mail was directed by the local draft board to the appellant until September 1955. It is undisputed that appellant’s parents remained at 650 — -11th Street, San Diego, California, until the middle of February 1955, at which time they moved to 1120 —30th Street, San Diego, at which time they furnished to the San Diego Post Office the latter address as the place where mail should be forwarded. It appears clear to me that notice directed to the appellant at 650 — 11th Street, San Diego, Calfornia, during the month of February 1955 would have come into the hands of the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that appellant’s parents moved to a new address about the middle of February. Also, in my view, it is pure speculation to assume that mail directed to the appellant at the Modesto address during the month of February 1955 would not have come into the hands of the appellant.
I am convinced that the evidence in this case meets the test laid down in Bartchy, and that appellant, in good faith, provided a chain of forwarding addresses by which mail sent to the *313•address which appellant furnished the board could be by the appellant reasonably expected to come into his hands in time for compliance. I would reverse the judgment of conviction.