Court Opinion

ID: 9446340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:52:37.814187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:37.405611
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my concurring opinion of June 30, 1958, I noted the reason there is doubt as to whether there was any closed season in Zimovia Strait at the time stated in the information. However I stated my concurrence in the judgment of affirmance on the ground that the point had not been raised at the trial or on appeal here and I felt that under the circumstances we would not be called upon to notice the point as a plain error under Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. Rule 52(b), 18 U.S.C.
Upon the petition for a rehearing appellants have called attention to the fact that if the regulations did not provide any prohibition as to Zimovia Strait, then the information did not state an offense. They also note that under Criminal Rule 12(b) (2), the failure of an information to charge an offense shall be noticed by the court at any time. The petition further suggests that there is no substantial proof of an administrative construction of the regulations such as that which I refer to in my former opinion.
I am bearing in mind the proposition that a person should not be fined or imprisoned for violation of a statute or regulation which is ambiguous or uncertain. Since I think it is a serious question whether the regulations, as framed, actually prohibited fishing in Zimovia Strait at the time in question, I think now that we should grant a rehearing since Rule 12(b) (2) would appear to make it appropriate for us to consider the matter.
It is suggested that at the time of the alleged offense appellants had reason to think the regulations covered this area, and did not then act in reliance upon these defects. Thus other fishermen stayed away.
I would doubt that a person could be convicted of violation of a regulation that did not cover his case, just because the accused thought it did.