United States v. Ah Hung
| Decision Date | 27 June 1917 |
| Citation | 243 F. 762 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. AH HUNG. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Melville J. France, U.S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N.Y.
Amy Wren, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for defendant.
Objection has been raised to the exercise of jurisdiction under the federal Constitution, and claim is made that the jurisdiction of the state statute is exclusive.
Chapter 100, Act Feb. 9, 1909, 35 Stat.p. 614 (Comp. St. 1916, Secs 8800-8801f), provides that all importation of opium shall be unlawful, but allows importation of other than smoking opium for medicinal purposes under regulations. It provides that importation, concealment, receipt, or sale of opium known to be imported contrary to law makes the opium contraband, and the person subject to punishment. It provides that possession shall be presumptive evidence sufficient to authorize conviction unless the possession is explained to the satisfaction of the jury.
Chapter 9, 38 Stat.p. 275, Act Jan. 17, 1914, adds certain sections but does not change the foregoing. Section 3 as added provides that smoking opium found after July 1, 1913, shall be presumed to have been imported after April 1, 1909, and the burden of proof is on the accused to rebut the presumption. Section 4 has to do with possession on a vehicle or vessel bound for the United States, unless the opium is reported to the master. Section 8 makes the vessel liable if the opium is found on the vessel and not shown by the manifest.
The Act of December 17, 1914, 38 Stat.p. 785 (Harrison Law) provided, under section 8 (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 6287n), that it should be unlawful for any person not registered to have in his possession 'such drugs.' The various cases under this statute, which sought to make mere possession of opium an absolute offense, were decided because of the difficulties presented in cases brought under the laws which had previously been passed, but in the case of U.S. v Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 36 Sup.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the words 'such drugs' referred only to those specified under the registration section, and that the presumptive evidence of possession justified conviction only for such possession as would be legal under the registration or prescription sections.
The present case charged willful and conscious concealment of smoking opium by the defendant, with knowledge that the opium had been imported into the United States contrary to law. It is laid under section 2 of the Act of January 17, 1914, being chapter 9 of the Laws of 1914. The provisions of this section are exactly the same as when passed in 1909, but we have in addition the provisions of section 3 that the opium itself is presumed to have been imported illegally, and the burden of rebutting that presumption is on the defendant as well as the burden of explaining his possession so as to relieve himself of knowledge as to the importation. This leaves the defendant in the situation of being liable to an accusation that he was in the possession of material presumed to be contraband and presumed to have been brought into the country unlawfully, unless he can show either a certificate or clear chain of title and history of the article, carrying it back of a possible contraband source. There seems to be no reason to hold that the law is unconstitutional. Brolan v. U.S., 236 U.S. 216, 35 Sup.Ct. 285, 59 L.Ed. 544.
The acts involved in this case are all subsequent to the passage and existence of the statute of which the defendant must have had knowledge and by which he is bound. The effect of the law is to put upon every person in the United States the burden of refusing to deal with what is upon its face contraband unless he can show its innocent character. If, under those circumstances, he takes into his possession an article which is thus labeled contraband, he commits a violation of the statute which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
...325 U.S. 91, 109, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 1039, 89 L.Ed. 1495; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 554, 23 L.Ed. 588; Unite States v. Ah Hung, 243 F. 762 (D.C.E.D.N.Y.). Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 5001, 18 U.S.C. § Whenever access to important testimony is barred by possible state prosecution, the St......
-
Brightman v. United States
...470, 69 L. Ed. ___; Gee Woe v. United States, 250 F. 428, 162 C. C. A. 498; United States v. Yee Fing (D. C.) 222 F. 154; United States v. Ah Hung (D. C.) 243 F. 762; Baender v. United States, 260 F. 832, 171 C. C. A. 558; Fiunkin v. United States (C. C. A.) 265 F. 1; Dean v. United States ......
-
United States v. Contrades, Cr. No. 11556.
...F. 879 and United States v. Yee Fing, D. C.Mont.1915, 222 F. 154; Shepard v. United States, 9 Cir., 1916, 236 F. 73; United States v. Ah Hung, D.C.N.Y.1917, 243 F. 762; United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 1916, 241 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 658, 60 L.Ed. 1061; Gee Woo v. United States, 5 Cir., 1918, 25......
-
United States v. Peeples
...426, 48 S.Ct. 373, 72 L.Ed. 632 (1928). (Butler, J., dissenting); Griego v. United States, supra at 848, of 298 F.2d; United States v. Ah Hung, 243 F. 762, 764 (EDNY 1917); Brosman, The Statutory Presumption, 5 Tul.L.Rev. 178, 203 (1931); cf. United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394, 401......