Boyle v. United States, 552
| Decision Date | 09 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 552,552 |
| Citation | 283 U.S. 25,51 S.Ct. 340,75 L.Ed. 816 |
| Parties | McBOYLE v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Harry F. Brown, of Guthrie, Okl., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Claude R. Branch, of Providence, R. I., for the United States.
The petitioner was convicted of transporting from Ottawa, Illinois, to Guymon, Oklahoma, an airplane that he knew to have been stolen, and was sentenced to serve three years' imprisonment and to pay a fine of $2,000. The judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 43 F.(2d) 273. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court on the question whether the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act applies to aircraft. Act of October 29, 1919, c. 89, 41 Stat. 324, U. S. Code, title 18, § 408 (18 USCA § 408). That Act provides:
Section 2 defines the motor vehicles of which the transportation in interstate commerce is punished in Section 3. The question is the meaning of the word 'vehicle' in the phrase 'any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails.' No doubt etymologically it is possible to use the word to signify a conveyance working on land, water or air, and sometimes legislation extends the use in that direction, e. g., land and air, water being separately provided for, in the Tariff Act, September 21, 1922, c. 356, § 401(b), 42 Stat. 858, 948 (19 USCA § 231(b). But in everyday speech 'vehicle' calls up the picture of a thing moving on land. Thus in Rev. St. § 4 (1 USCA § 4) intended, the Government suggests, rather to enlarge than to restrict the definition, vehicle includes every contrivance capable of being used 'as a means of transportation on land.' And this is repeated, expressly excluding aircraft, in the Tariff Act, June 17, 1930, c. 497, § 401(b), 46 Stat. 590, 708 (19 USCA § 1401). So here, the phrase under discussion calls up the popular picture. For after including automobile truck, automobile wagon and motor cycle, the words 'any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails' still indicate that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramos v. Racette
...the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed." McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931); see also John Calvin Jeffries, Jr., Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes, 71 Va. L. Rev. 189, 211......
-
Burg v. Municipal Court
...989]; Rose v. Locke (1975) 423 U.S. 48, 49, 96 S.Ct. 243, 244, 46 L.Ed.2d 185 ["fair warning"]; see also McBoyle v. United States (1931) 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 341, 75 L.Ed. 816, in which Justice Holmes observed, "[a]lthough it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider t......
-
United States v. Caldwell
... ... might be read, this particular one does not cover every noun ... in the universe with tangible form.” Id. at ... 552 ... The ... parties dispute whether the Yates plurality's or ... Justice Alito's reasoning controls, but the court need ... ...
-
State v. Pickering
...Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162-63, 92 S.Ct. 839, 843, 31 L.Ed.2d 110. As Mr. Justice Holmes explained in McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 341, 75 L.Ed. 816: "Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or s......
-
Developments in Environmental Criminal Law: It's Not Just Directors And Officers Who Are Facing Jail
...in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed." McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931). Due process principles require that an individual be given fair notice as to what constitutes illegal conduct and an opportunity t......
-
The Hackback Debate
...nearly impossible; deeply ambiguous criminal laws like this are construed in favor of the defendant. See, e.g., McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931) ("[I]t is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world, in language that the common world will understand, of what ......
-
Notable 5-4 SCOTUS split in ruling to limit civil penalties of Bank Secrecy Act
...in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931). If this section of the Bittner opinion carried the Court, I suspect this case might end up cited in more than a few criminal statu......
-
Kisor v. Wilkie as a Limit on Auer Deference in the Sentencing Context
...260. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. at 95; see Rabb, supra note 259, at 193.261. Rabb, supra note 259, at 194 (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)). There is a broader understanding of this notice rationale that recognizes that "the requirement of a clear statement checks the disc......
-
Table of Cases
..., 9 L.Ed. 648 (1837), 754, 864 McAuliffe v. Mayor of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 29 N.E. 517 (Mass. 1892), 1472 McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 51 S.Ct. 340, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931), McCardle, Ex parte, 74 U.S. 506, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868), 593-94 McClesky v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 107 S.Ct. 17......
-
When Judicial Deference Erodes Liberty: The Shortcomings of Stinson v. United States and its Implications on Judicial Ethics
...cmt. n.2. 58. Stinson, 508 U.S. at 40. 59. Id. at 42–43. 60. Id. at 47–48. 61. Id . at 48. 62. See, e.g. , McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25 (1931) ; see also 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 88 (4th ed. 1770). This version of lenity reflects the principle that......
-
Is Vagueness Choking the White-collar Statute?
...if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so fair as possible the line should be clear." (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931)).20. Williams, 553 U.S. at 304.21. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 (1983) (discussing the expansive discretion that broad......