Gooch v. United States
Citation | 80 L.Ed. 522,56 S.Ct. 395,297 U.S. 124 |
Decision Date | 03 February 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 559,559 |
Parties | GOOCH v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. W. F. Rampendahl, of Muskogee, Okl., for Gooch.
Messrs. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Gordon Dean, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
By permission of section 346, 28 U.S.C.A., the Circuit Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, has certified two questions and asked instruction.
otherwise,' in the act of June 22, 1932, as amended May 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 781), 18 U.S.C.A. § 408a?
The statement revealing the facts and circumstances out of which the questions arise follows—
'Gooch was convicted and sentenced to be hanged under an indictment charging that he, with one Nix, kidnaped two officers at Paris, Texas, 'for the purpose of preventing his (Gooch's) arrest by the said peace officers in the State of Texas', and transported them in interstate commerce from Paris, Texas, to Pushmataha County, Oklahoma, and at the time of the kidnaping did bodily harm and injury to one of the officers from which bodily harm the officer was suffering at the time of his liberation by Gooch and Nix in Oklahoma.
The Act of June 22, 1932, c. 271, 47 Stat. 326, provided:
'That whoever shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or abet in transporting, in interstate or foreign commerce, any person who shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, or carried away by any means whatsoever and held for ransom or reward shall, upon convic- tion, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for such term of years as the court, in its discretion, shall determine.'
The amending Act of May 18, 1934, c. 301, 48 Stat. 781, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408a, declares:
'Whoever shall knowingly transport or cause to be transported, or aid or abet in transporting, in interstate or foreign commerce, any person who shall have been unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, or carried away by any means whatsoever and held for ransom or reward or otherwise, except, in the case of a minor, by a parent thereof, shall, upon conviction, be punished (1) by death if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, provided that the sentence of death shall not be imposed by the court if, prior to its imposition, the kidnaped person has been liberated unharmed, or (2) if the death penalty shall not apply nor be imposed the convicted person shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for such term of years as the court in its discretion shall determine.'
Counsel for Gooch submit that the words 'ransom or reward' import 'some pecuniary consideration or payment of something of value'; that as the statute is criminal the familiar rule of ejusdem generis must be strictly applied; and finally, it cannot properly be said that a purpose to prevent arrest and one to obtain money or something of pecuniary value are similar in nature.
The original act (1932) required that the transported person should be held 'for ransom or reward.' It did not undertake to define the words and nothing indicates an intent to limit their meaning to benefits of pecuniary value. Generally, reward implies something given in return for good or evil done or received.
Informed by experience during two years, and for reasons satisfactory to itself, Congress undertook by the 1934 act to enlarge the earlier one and to clarify its pur- pose by inserting 'or otherwise, except, in the case of a minor, by a parent thereof,' immediately after 'held for ransom or reward.' The history of the enactment emphasized this view.
The Senate Judiciary Committee made a report, copied in the margin,1 recommending passage of the amending bill and pointing out the broad purpose intended to be accomplished.
The House Judiciary Committee made a like recommendation and said:
Evidently, Congress...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Mobley
...301, 48 Stat. 781 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 408a (1934) (current version at 18 U.S.C. § 120115 ); see also Gooch v. United States , 297 U.S. 124, 129, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522 (1936) (noting the exclusion "indicate[s] legislative understanding that," without it, "a parent, who carried his ......
-
Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc.
...which "limits general terms which follow specific ones to matters similar to those specified." Gooch v. United States , 297 U.S. 124, 128, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522 (1936). In doing so, the Supreme Court found that the FAA's exemption "should be read to give effect to the terms ‘seamen’ an......
-
Gabbard v. Madison Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
...uncertainty.’ " United States v. Powell , 423 U.S. 87, 91, 96 S.Ct. 316, 46 L.Ed.2d 228 (1975), quoting Gooch v. United States , 297 U.S. 124, 128, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522 (1936). This court has frequently noted that we invoke rules of statutory interpretation only when the statutory lan......
-
Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson
...to matters similar to those specified," Wallaesa v. FAA , 824 F.3d 1071, 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Gooch v. United States , 297 U.S. 124, 128, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522 (1936) ), the third action must be construed to reach only events "of the same class as those listed" in the precedi......
-
Interring the Immigration Rule of Lenity
...(1944)) (citing United States v. Raynor, 302 U.S. 540, 552 (1938); United States v. Giles, 300 U.S. 41, 48 (1937); Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124 (1936); United States v. Corbett, 215 U.S. 233 [75]Id. at 27. [76] United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 521 (1950). [7......
-
Kimberly Lehnert, termination of the Stay for Successive Filers: Interpreting § 362(c)(3)
...575 (1995) (relying on the noscitur a sociis canon to inform its interpretation of “prospectus” in the statute); Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 128 (1936) (describing the ejusdem generic canon).See Gustafson, 513 U.S. at 575–76 (discussing the doctrine of noscitur a sociis and ultima......
-
After Dobbs: History, Tradition, and the Uncertain Future of a Nationwide Abortion Ban.
...to refer to other kinds of drugs or medicinal substances, following the familiar canon of ejusdem generis. See Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 128 (1936) ("The rule of ejusdem generis ... limits general terms which follow specific ones to matters similar to those (235.) Quay, supra no......
-
American Immigration Law: A Comparative Legal, Economic, and Constitutional Analysis
...that “even under our noncommercial items such as persons fleeing prosecution or persons kidnapping others. See Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124 (1936). 104See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558–59 (citations omitted). This power involves intrastate activities that “have such a close and substantial......