UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
GARY WAYNE BLACK, 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 the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that the determination of the propriety of the order to report for induction was not before them.
Appellant was convicted of refusing induction into the military. His sole contention was that a physical pre-induction examination disclosed a disqual…
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.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant herein was convicted after a jury trial of a violation of 50 U.S.C. App. Section 462 (Refusal to Submit to Induction).
Appellant’s sole contention is that his physical pre-induction examination disclosed that he had a disqualifying condition.1 The medical report in appellant’s selective service file, which was admitted in evidence, set out appellant’s physical condition. The record discloses ample evidence that appellant’s condition was diagnosed and that two Army doctors found appellant acceptable for military service. In his instructions, the district judge instructed the jury that “the determination made by the doctor was made on a sufficient basis and therefore the determination of the propriety of the order to report for induction” was not before the jury, and that as a matter of law the appellant was under an obligation to report for induction.
We agree.
In United States v. Shunk, 438 F. 2d 1204 (9th Cir.), where the appellant offered testimony at the trial concerning his physical condition, which testimony was rejected, the court stated:
“There being no indication of arbitrary action or deficiency in prescribed procedure in connection with the described examination and subsequent inspection, the record provides a basis in fact for the determination that defendant was physically fit to be inducted. See Vasilj v. United States, 425 F. 2d 1134 (9th Cir. 1970).
“Absent some highly unusual circumstance, not present here, this left no room for further inquiry at the trial concerning defendant’s physical fitness to be inducted. . . . The trial court did not err in rejecting the offered testimony.”
In this case the record shows there was a basis in fact for the finding of acceptability. We see no error in the action of the District Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
. Army medical standards provide for rejection when examination reveals an undiagnosed mass or enlargement of the testicle or epididymis. Alt 40-501, section 2-14m (2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Wilson, 478 F.2d 475 (9th Cir. 1973)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Shunk, 438 F.2d 1204 (9th Cir. 1971)
- Vasilj v. United States, 425 F.2d 1134 (9th Cir. 1970)