UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
BENNY HUIE GREEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 knowledge of the baiting is not required to be convicted of hunting over a baited area under the regulation.
Appellant was convicted of hunting mourning doves over a baited area. The District Judge found ample proof that the area was baited with wheat and cor…
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 Migratory Bird Treaty Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Green was convicted after trial before District Judge Charles Allen for “taking” mourning doves “on or over any baited area,” in violation of50 C.F.R. § 20.21, promulgated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (1970). He was sentenced to six months, with all but 15 days suspended, and fined $450.
There was ample proof (albeit vigorously disputed by the hunters) from which the District Judge could find, as he did, that the small island in the. Ohio River where Green and 64 others were arrested with guns and dead birds in possession had been baited with wheat and corn.
The regulation provides in pertinent part: No person shall take migratory game birds:
* * * * *
(i) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area. As used in this paragraph, “baiting” shall mean the placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn, wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed so as to constitute for such birds a lure, attraction or enticement to, on, or over any areas where hunters are attempting to take them; and “baited area” means any area where shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn, wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed whatsoever capable of luring, attracting, or enticing such birds is directly or indirectly placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or scattered; and such area shall remain a baited area for 10 days following complete removal of all such corn, wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed.
We note appellant’s reliance upon Allen v. Merovka, 382 F. 2d 589 (10th Cir. 1967). While we believe the eases are distinguishable on the facts, we also disagree with the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion that the regulation requires proof “that the hunters are performing or have some part directly or indirectly in the baiting or it is done for their benefit as a part of a ‘hunting method.’ ” Allen v. Merovka, supra at 591.
Finding no other issues of significance in this appeal, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Engler, 806 F.2d 425 (3d Cir. 1986)
-
United States v. Wulff, 758 F.2d 1121 (6th Cir. 1985)
-
United States v. Brandt, 717 F.2d 955 (6th Cir. 1983)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Ireland, 493 F.2d 1208 (4th Cir. 1973)
- Renwick L. Allen and Courtney Vallentine v. Merovka, 382 F.2d 589 (10th Cir. 1967)