Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, No. 44

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPITNEY
Citation41 S.Ct. 98,254 U.S. 189,65 L.Ed. 214
PartiesJIN FUEY MOY v. UNITED STATES
Docket NumberNo. 44
Decision Date06 December 1920

254 U.S. 189
41 S.Ct. 98
65 L.Ed. 214
JIN FUEY MOY

v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 44.
Argued Oct. 11, 1920.
Decided Dec. 6, 1920.

Page 190

Messrs. H. Ralph Burton, of Washington, D. C., John W. Dunkle, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Blaine Mallan, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Solicitor General Frierson, for the United States.

Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted for violating section 2 of an Act of Congress approved December 17, 1914, commonly known as the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act (38 Stat. 785, ch. 1 [Comp. St. § 6287h]).1 His motion in arrest of judgment having

Page 191

been overruled (253 Fed. 213), he brought the case here by direct writ of error under section 238, Judicial Code, upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of the act. Afterwards this question was set at rest by our decision in United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 39 Sup. Ct. 214, 63 L. Ed. 493, sustaining the act; but our jurisdiction continues for the purpose of disposing of other questions raised in the record. Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 35 Sup. Ct. 285, 59 L. Ed. 544; Pierce v. United States, 252 U. S. 239, 40 Sup. Ct. 205, 64 L. Ed. 542.

These questions relate to the sufficiency of the indictment, the adequacy of the evidence to warrant a conviction, the admissibility of certain evidence offered by defendant and rejected by the trial court, and the instructions given and refused to be given to the jury.

The indictment contained twenty counts, differing only in matters of detail. Defendant was convicted upon eight counts, acquitted upon the others. Each count averred that on a date specified, at Pittsburgh, in the county of Allegheny, in the Western district of Pennsylvania, and within the jurisdiction of the court, defendant was a practicing physician, and did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and feloniously sell, barter, exchange, and give away certain derivatives and salts of opium, to wit, a specified quantity of morphine sulphate, to a person named, not in pursuance of a written order from such person on a form issued in blank for that purpose by the

Page 192

Commissioner of Internal Revenue under the provisions of section 2 of the act, 'in manner following, to-wit, that the said Jin Fuey Moy, at the time and place aforesaid, did issue and dispense' to the person named a certain prescription of which a copy was set forth, and that said person 'was not then and there a patient of the said Jin Fuey Moy, and the said morphine sulphate was dispensed and distributed by the said Jin Fuey Moy not in the course of his professional practice only; contrary to the form of the act of Congress,' etc.

It is objected that the act of selling or giving away a drug and the act of issuing a prescription are so essentially different that to allege that defendant sold the drug by issuing a prescription for it amounts to a contradiction of terms, and the repugnance renders the indictment fatally defective. The government suggests that the clause as to issuing the prescription may be rejected as surplusage; but we are inclined to think it enters so intimately into the description of the offense intended to be charged that it cannot be eliminated, and that unless defendant could 'sell,' in a criminal sense, by issuing a prescription, the indictment is bad. If 'selling' must be confined to a parting with one's own property there might be difficulty. But by section 332 of the Criminal Code (Comp. St. § 10506):

'Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense, defined in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
122 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Moore, No. 73-1192
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 18, 1975
    ...S.Ct. 214, 63 L.Ed. 493 (1919); Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819 (1925). See Appellee's Brief at 61-63. 17 254 U.S. 189, 194, 41 S.Ct. 98, 100, 65 L.Ed. 214 18 Appellee's Brief at 23. 19 S. 3246, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), is reproduced at 116 Cong.Rec. 1671......
  • United Sttaes v. Cortés–Cabán, Nos. 09–2094
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 10, 2012
    ...from their doctor. See, e.g., United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922); Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920); Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497 (1919). As courts tightened up on those medi......
  • U.S. v. Perry, Nos. 783
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 13, 1981
    ...of 18 U.S.C. § 2 can be read into an indictment which specifically charges only a substantive offense. Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920); United States v. Walker, 621 F.2d 163, 165-66 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Knickerbocker Fur Coat Page 4......
  • U.S. v. Rosenberg, No. 74-2197
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 31, 1975
    ...is buttressed by the facts that physicians were subject to the prior federal drug laws, see, e. g., Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920), and that one of the three purposes of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (of Page 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
121 cases
  • U.S. v. Moore, No. 73-1192
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • February 18, 1975
    ...S.Ct. 214, 63 L.Ed. 493 (1919); Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 45 S.Ct. 446, 69 L.Ed. 819 (1925). See Appellee's Brief at 61-63. 17 254 U.S. 189, 194, 41 S.Ct. 98, 100, 65 L.Ed. 214 18 Appellee's Brief at 23. 19 S. 3246, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), is reproduced at 116 Cong.Rec. 1671......
  • United Sttaes v. Cortés–Cabán, Nos. 09–2094
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 10, 2012
    ...from their doctor. See, e.g., United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 42 S.Ct. 303, 66 L.Ed. 619 (1922); Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920); Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 39 S.Ct. 217, 63 L.Ed. 497 (1919). As courts tightened up on those medi......
  • U.S. v. Perry, Nos. 783
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 13, 1981
    ...of 18 U.S.C. § 2 can be read into an indictment which specifically charges only a substantive offense. Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920); United States v. Walker, 621 F.2d 163, 165-66 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Knickerbocker Fur Coat Page 4......
  • U.S. v. Rosenberg, No. 74-2197
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 31, 1975
    ...is buttressed by the facts that physicians were subject to the prior federal drug laws, see, e. g., Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 41 S.Ct. 98, 65 L.Ed. 214 (1920), and that one of the three purposes of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (of Page 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Reflections of an Academic Clinical Researcher on the past 40 Years of Addiction Development
    • United States
    • Journal of Drug Issues Nbr. 39-1, January 2009
    • January 1, 2009
    ...1914 Retrieved April 15, 2009 from, http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/ library/studies/cu/cu8.html.Jin Fuey Moy v. United States 1916 254 U.S. 189. Retrieved April 15, 2009 from, http://www.druglibrary.org/ schaffer/legal/l1920/Jinfuey.htm.Mandel, J. The mythical roots of U.S. drug policy......

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