UNITED STATES, APPELLEE,
v.
MARK DAVID ALBERT KLOTZ, APPELLANT

8th Cir. | 1974-10-01
No. 74-1069
503 F.2d 1056 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1974) Negative Treatment
Cited by 7 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that a new legal theory cannot be raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing after the case has been tried and briefed on other theories.


Facts & Procedural History

The Government sought to raise a new statutory theory in a petition for rehearing after a conviction, claiming it relieved them of the burden of provi…

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.


Other
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In a petition for rehearing the Government has called the court’s attention to 50 U.S.C. App. § 465(a) (1970). The section provides:

(a) Every person shall be deemed to have notice of the requirements of this title upon publication by the President of a proclamation or other public notice fixing a time for any registration under section 3 [50 U.S. C. App. § 453],1

The Government asserts that by operation of this section of the Selective Service Act it was relieved of the burden of proving that defendant knowingly failed to register under 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a). We need not decide the correctness of this interpretation, for, in point of fact, the Government tried its case and briefed the appeal' without in any way relying upon this section of the statute. It can not now, after failing to prevail on its original theories, invoke an entirely new theory in support of conviction.

Had the Government proceeded to trial in reliance on this section, the defendant may very well have made a different election in the presentation of his defense, choosing instead, for example, to take the stand. Moreover, had the Government raised this section on appeal, the defendant could have prepared a reply for the court’s consideration. As it is, the petition has all the appearances of an afterthought.

Because the Government’s resort to 50 U.S.C. App. § 465(a) is not timely, we have no occasion to consider its application to the conviction before us. See Carr v. FTC, 302 F. 2d 688, 691-692 (1st Cir. 1962). Accordingly, the petition is denied.

ROSS and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges would grant a rehearing en banc.

. Seven proclamations, beginning with Proclamation No. 2799, July 20, 1948, 13 Fed. Reg. 4173, 62 Stat. 1531, have been issued by the President pursuant to this section.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw