Boyle v. United States

Decision Date09 March 1931
Docket NumberNo. 552,552
Citation283 U.S. 25,51 S.Ct. 340,75 L.Ed. 816
PartiesMcBOYLE v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.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.

Mr. Justice HOLMESdelivered the opinion of the Court.

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: 'Sec. 2.That when used in this Act: (a) The term 'motor vehicle' shall include an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motor cycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails.* * * Sec. 3.That whoever shall transport or cause to be transported in interstate or foreign commerce a motor vehicle, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment of not more than five years, or both.'

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 vehicle in the popular sense, that is a vehicle running on land is the theme....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
575 cases
  • Ramos v. Racette
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 4, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1983
    ...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......
  • State v. Pickering
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1980
    ...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......
  • State v. A.M.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 12, 2019
    ...make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear.’ " Id. at 348, 92 S. Ct. 515 (quoting McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S. Ct. 340, 75 L. Ed. 816 (1931) ). "Second, because of the seriousness of criminal penalties, and because criminal punishment usually repr......
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
  • Developments in Environmental Criminal Law: It's Not Just Directors And Officers Who Are Facing Jail
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 13, 2001
    ...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
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 13, 2012
    ...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 ......
25 books & journal articles
  • Kisor v. Wilkie as a Limit on Auer Deference in the Sentencing Context
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 70-4, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...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......
  • C. Classification of Offenses
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter I General Principles of Criminal Law
    • Invalid date
    ...to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear. McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931). For a brief discussion of the role of the Court in the development of the common law see State v. Home, 282 S.C. 444, 319 S.E.2d 703 (1......
  • A Unified Approach to Lenity: Reconnecting Strict Construction with Its Underlying Values
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-3, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . . .”). 67. 283 U.S. 25 (1931). 68. Id. at 25–26. McBoyle is, incidentally, the inspiration for the famous “no vehicles in the park” case study. Solan, supra note 9,......
  • When Judicial Deference Erodes Liberty: The Shortcomings of Stinson v. United States and its Implications on Judicial Ethics
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics No. 34-4, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...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......
  • Get Started for Free

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