United States v. Behrman
Decision Date | 27 March 1922 |
Docket Number | No. 582,582 |
Citation | 42 S.Ct. 303,258 U.S. 280,66 L.Ed. 619 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. BEHRMAN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Wm. C. Herron, of Washington, D. C., for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from page 281-282 intentionally omitted] Mr. Thomas C. Spelling, of New York City, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 282-285 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is here under the Criminal Appeals Act. 34 Stat. 1246 (Comp. St. § 1704). The statute involved is the Narcotic Drug Act of December 17, 1914, c. 1, § 2, subd. 'a,' 38 Stat. 785, 786 (Comp. St. § 6287h).
This statute, in section 2, subdivision 'a,' makes it an offense to sell, barter, exchange, or give away any of the narcotic drugs named in the act except in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom such article is sold, bartered, exchanged, or given, on a form to be issued in blank for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It is further provided that nothing in the section shall apply to the dispensing or distribution of any of the drugs to a patient of a registered physician in the course of his professional practice only, or to the sale, dispensing or distribution of said drugs by a dealer to a consumer in pursuance of a written prescription issued by a physician registered under the act.
The indictment charges that the defendant did unlawfully sell, barter, and give to Willie King a compound, manufacture, and derivative of opium, to wit, 150 grains of heroin and 360 grains of morphine, and a compound, manufacture, and derivative of coca leaves, to wit, 210 grains of cocaine, not in pursuance of any written order of King on a form issued for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the United States; that the defendant was a duly licensed physician and registered under the act, and issued three written orders to the said King in the form of prescriptions signed by him, which prescriptions called for the delivery to King of the amount of drugs above described; that the defendant intended that King should obtain the drugs from the druggist upon the said orders; that King did obtain upon said orders drugs of the amount and kind above described pursuant to the said prescriptions; that King was a person addicted to the habitual use of morphine, heroin, and cocaine, and known by the defendant to be so addicted; that King did not require the administration of either morphine, heroin, or cocaine by reason of any disease other than such addiction; that defendant did not dispense any of the drugs for the purpose of treating any disease or condition other than such addiction; that none of the drugs so dispensed by the defendant was administered to or intended by the defendant to be administered to King by the defendant or any nurse, or person acting under the direction of the defendant, nor were any of the drugs consumed or intended to be consumed by King in the presence of the defendant, but that all of the drugs were put in the possession or control of King, with the intention on the part of the defendant that King would use the same by self-administration in divided doses over a period of several days, the amount of each of said drugs dispensed being more than sufficient or necessary to satisfy the craving of King therefor, if consumed by him all at one time; that King was not in any way restrained or prevented from disposing of the drugs in any manner he saw fit; and that the drugs so dispensed by the defendant were in the form in which said drugs are usually consumed by persons addicted to the habitual use thereof to satisfy their craving therefor, and were adapted for such consumption.
The question is: Do the acts charged in this indictment constitute an offense within the meaning of the statute. As we have seen, the statute contains an exception to the effect that it shall not apply to the dispensing or distribution of such drugs to a patient by a registered physician in the course of his professional practice only, nor to the sale, dispensing, or distribution of the drugs by a dealer to a consumer under a written prescription by a registered physician. The rule applicable to such statutes is that it is enough to charge facts sufficient to show that the accused is not within the exception. United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168, 173, 21 L. Ed. 538.
The District Judge who heard this case was of the opinion that prescriptions in the regular course of practice did not include the indiscriminate doling out of narcotics in such quantity to addicts as charged in the indictment, but out of deference to what he deemed to be the view of a local District Judge in another case announced his willingness to follow such opinion until the question could be passed upon by this court, and sustained the demurrer. In our opinion the District Judge who heard the case was right in his conclusion and should have overruled the demurrer.
Former decisions of this court have held that the purpose of the exception is to confine the distribution of these drugs to the regular and lawful course of professional practice, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Genson, No. 121,014
...L. Ed. 48 (1943)]."The Court approved the conclusion in its prior cases upholding strict liability crimes, United States v. Behrman , 258 U.S. 280, 42 S. Ct. 303, 66 L. Ed. 619 (1922), and United States v. Balint , 258 U.S. 250, 42 S. Ct. 301, 66 L. Ed. 604 (1922), under the circumstances t......
-
United States v. United States Gypsum Company
...has created and this Court has recognized such offenses, see e. g., United States v. Balint, supra; United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922); United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48 (1943); United States v. Freed, supra, attest ......
-
Frankfort Distilleries v. United States
...U.S. 29, 16 S.Ct. 434, 480, 40 L.Ed. 606; Bartell v. United States, 227 U.S. 427, 33 S.Ct. 383, 57 L.Ed. 583; United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619; Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 47 S.Ct. 300, 71 L.Ed. 545; Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 52 S.C......
-
United States v. Fernandez, 72-2088
...or intent at the time she committed the offense, it being phrased in the language of the statute itself. United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922). 390 F.2d at 6 California Penal Code § 656 (West 1970) provides: "Whenever on the trial of an accused person it ......
-
The dilemma of mental state in federal regulatory crimes: the environmental example.
...that a punitive purpose existed in the criminal antitrust statute and, thus, knowledge was required) with United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 287-89 (1922) (holding that the purpose behind the narcotics tax statute was regulatory as opposed to punitive and, thus, knowledge was not requi......
-
Criminal liability for life-endangering corporate conduct.
...supra note 18, at 56. (101) 342 U.S. 246 (1951). (102) See United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943); United States v. Berhman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922); United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (103) United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. at 252. (104) See Olds, Unkovle & Lewin, Thoughts on......
-
Whether physician-assisted suicide serves a "legitimate medical purpose" under the Drug Enforcement Administration's regulations implementing the Controlled Substances Act.
...practice were subject to the same penalties as street pushers with no claim to legitimacy."). (28) See, e.g., United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922) (sustaining conviction of physician over dissent's argument that defendant should have been assumed to have given drugs in the regular ......
-
Closing commentary on corporate criminality: legal, ethical, and managerial implications.
...Civil Law Models---and What Can be Done About It, 101 YALE L.J. 1875, 1880-81 & n.22 (1992). (6.) See, e.g., United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 288 (1922) (stating that intent is not a requirement if the statute omits intent as an element of the offense); Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. M......