UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
IVAN RAY GOYETTE, 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 evidence was sufficient to prove unlawful intent and the statute was not unconstitutionally vague.
The defendant was convicted of unlawful acquisition of food stamp coupons after purchasing them. He claimed his motive was to aid law enforcement and …
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 Vagueness Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
After a trial to the court, Goyette was convicted of a violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2023 (unlawful acquisition of food stamp coupons). Upon this appeal, he urges that the evidence was insufficient to prove unlawful intent arid that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. His contentions are without merit and we affirm.
In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of criminal intent, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Nelson, 419 F. 2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1969).
Appellant admitted that he purchased the food stamps. He testified that his motive in buying them was to aid law enforcement and to bring the sellers (government agents) to justice.
However, the trier of fact was not obliged to credit the self-serving, and somewhat implausible, testimony of the defendant. The trial judge could instead, as he evidently did, find that Goy- ette purchased the stamps with criminal intent and then,' after later learning that he had dealt with government agents, devised a false story in an attempt to' exculpate himself.
Goyette admitted at trial that he knew his purchase was unlawful. His contention that the statute is void for vagueness borders on the frivolous. United States v. Wilson, 438 F. 2d 479 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 929, 91 S.Ct. 1525, 28 L.Ed.2d 863 (1971). See also United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 83 S.Ct. 594, 9 L.Ed.2d 561 (1963), which teaches that a statute will not be ruled void for vagueness when it is sufficient to give the particular defendant notice that his conduct is illegal.
Affirmed. The mandate will issue now.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rodriquez, 365 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 1978)
-
United States v. Eloy Salazar, 720 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1983)
-
United States v. Marvin, 687 F.2d 1221 (8th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1942)
- United States v. Nat'l Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1963)
- United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Bellamy v. United States, 402 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1971)
- United States v. Wilson, 438 F.2d 479 (7th Cir. 1971)
- Ethicon, Inc. v. Handgards, Inc., 402 U.S. 929 (U.S. 1971)