Gretter v. United States, 522-69.

Citation422 F.2d 315
Decision Date06 March 1970
Docket NumberNo. 522-69.,522-69.
PartiesJohn Stephen GRETTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

Milnor H. Senior, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

Gordon Allott, Denver, Colo. (James L. Treece, U.S. Atty., and Milton C. Branch, Asst. U.S. Atty., Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellee.

Before LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BRATTON, District Judge.

BRATTON, District Judge.

This is an appeal by John Stephen Gretter from his conviction upon an information charging him with having failed to advise his local draft board of the address where mail would reach him. 50 App. U.S.C.A. § 462(a).

The evidence at trial established that appellant had duly registered with his local board in 1964 immediately following his eighteenth birthday, giving as his address the home of his parents with whom he lived. He was subsequently ordered to report for a physical examination, but, due to overweight, he was found medically unacceptable.

In the summer of 1967 he was ordered to submit to and successfully passed a second physical examination. He was given a 1-A classification as available for service.

Appellant testified at trial that in December of 1967 he left his parents' home following a disagreement with them. He left no forwarding address with them. Nor did he inform his draft board of any change of address.

He remained in the Denver area for approximately two months and then traveled West, ultimately stopping in San Francisco, where he stayed until the end of October, 1968. Following this he returned to his parents' home in Denver for a brief period and then moved to another address in Denver.

Shortly after he left his parents' home, the appellant contacted a friend of his who lived across the street from his parents. His understanding with his friend was that the friend would communicate to him anything appellant needed to know without telling appellant's parents where he was unless absolutely necessary. From time to time, Gretter called his friend from San Francisco and gave him both addresses where he could receive mail and phone numbers where messages could be left for him. The fees for the calls were charged to the telephone number of Gretter's parents.

At no time during his sojourn in San Francisco did Gretter have a permanent address, and, while his parents apparently knew he was in San Francisco, they had no knowledge of where in San Francisco he could be located.

The only evidence introduced at trial by the Government was certainly properly identified portions of the appellant's Selective Service file. These documents showed that on March 13, 1968, his local draft board mailed to his parents' address appellant's order to report for induction into the armed forces. The envelope containing the order was returned unopened to the board with an accompanying letter from appellant's father. In the letter appellant's father stated that he believed an order to report was enclosed in the envelope. He further related that his son had left home in December of 1967 and that he had had no contact with the boy since then. He advised the board that he had tried unsuccessfully to convey to his son the draft notice and that he thought his son might be in San Francisco.

Further shown was that subsequent inquiries by the board to appellant's last known employer and to the state drivers license bureau produced only the address of his parents' home as appellant's last listed address. The board also attempted to notify him that his induction papers had been returned with the notation "failed to report", but this communication was also returned to the board marked "address unknown."

Also admitted into evidence was the document reflecting that appellant was reported to the United States Attorney on April 12, 1968, as delinquent for having failed to report for induction and for having failed to keep the local board informed of his current address.

An F.B.I. agent located appellant in a hospital in San Francisco in October of 1968 and told him he had been ordered to report for induction. Introduced from his file was the letter Gretter immediately wrote to the draft board, telling them where he was and informing them that he planned to return to his parents' home in Denver following his release from the hospital.

As indicated above, appellant did return to his parents' home near the end of October. He subsequently moved to another address, and, while he furnished his parents with this address, he did not inform his draft board.

Among the questions presented on appeal are whether it was prejudicial error to submit to the jury the order to report for induction and the board's subsequent letter to appellant which stated that his induction papers had been returned with the notation "failed to report" and whether those portions of his father's letter to the board and the Delinquent Registrants Report that referred, respectively, to his order to submit and failure to do so should have been deleted before those documents were seen by the jury.

Appellant's defense to the charge was lack of intent. His evidence attempted to show that there had been no wilful and knowing violation of the law and that, at the most, he had only been negligent in failing to keep his board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • U.S. v. Bowie, s. 87-2461
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 8 Enero 1990
    ...of the evidence to support the verdict, we have stated the plain error standard in different words, see Gretter v. United States, 422 F.2d 315, 318 (10th Cir.1970) (verdict that is palpably wrong); Maxfield v. United States, 360 F.2d 97, 102 (10th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 830, 8......
  • United States v. Burton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 4 Enero 1973
    ...1972); United States v. Buckley, 452 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1971); United States v. Read, 443 F.2d 842 (5th Cir. 1971); Gretter v. United States, 422 F.2d 315 (10th Cir. 1970); Kokotan v. United States, 408 F.2d 1134 (10th Cir. 1969). In these cases, convictions of registrants for violating 32......
  • United States v. Booth, 71-1510.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 31 Enero 1972
    ...had wilfully and knowingly failed to provide his local board with a current address where he could be reached. See Gretter v. United States, 422 F.2d 315, 318 (10th Cir. 1970); United States v. Read, supra, 443 F.2d at 844. Compare United States v. Ebey, supra, 424 F.2d at 377; Venus v. Uni......
  • United States v. Greene, 470-70.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • 1 Junio 1971
    ...falsely made, forged * * * (s)hall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." 2 Gretter v. United States, 422 F.2d 315 (10th Cir. 1970); Glazerman v. United States, 421 F.2d 547 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 1817, 26 L.Ed.2d 90 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • PART 3 - CHAPTER 11 Preparation for Trial
    • United States
    • Aspen Fundamentals of Criminal Law and Procedure for Paralegals
    • Invalid date
    ...the trial court should instruct the jury not to consider the matter of punishment in arriving at their verdict. Gretter v. United States, 422 F.2d 315, 319 (10th Cir. 1970). It is error to tell the jury the probable or potential consequences resulting from a particular verdict. United State......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT