PENLEY
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the board's alleged arbitrary action was not reversible error.
The defendant was classified as a conscientious objector, then reclassified I-A by the board of appeal. He refused to report for induction and was con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Selective Training And Service Act Of 1940 cases and more on FLexlaw
WOODBURY, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment sentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment after a jury had found him guilty as charged in an indictment alleging that he had violated § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 894, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311, by knowingly failing to report for induction pursuant to an order of his local draft board.
From the record it appears that the defendant-appellant requested classification in IV-E as a conscientious objector and that his local board so classified him. But on appeal taken by the government appeal' agent on behalf of the government the board of appeal unanimously put him in I-A. He was duly notified of this classification and in due course he received the order to report for induction which he admittedly refused to obey. His indictment, trial, conviction and sentence followed. At the trial below the court excluded certain evidence offered by the defendant to show that the board of appeal had acted arbitrarily, capriciously and contrary to law in classifying him in I-A instead of IV-E and this, he contends, constitutes reversible error. The case at bar differs from Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, only in that the defendant here was ordered to report for induction into the armed forces, whereas in the Falbo case the registrant was ordered to report for assignment to work of national importance. No argument is needed to show that this difference does not distinguish the instant case from the one cited. On the authority of that case,
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sirski v. United States, 145 F.2d 749 (1st Cir. 1944)
Authorities Cited
- Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1944)