Pon v. United States, 4315.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 4315.,4315. |
| Citation | 168 F.2d 373 |
| Parties | PON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Michael Carchia, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. (William T. McCarthy, U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MAHONEY and WOODBURY, Circuit Judges, and PETERS, District Judge.
The defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction after a trial by jury upon his plea of not guilty to an indictment charging him with a violation of Section 174, Title 21 U.S.C.A., by receiving and concealing narcotic drugs.
At the conclusion of the evidence defendant's counsel moved for an acquittal on the ground that the arrest of the defendant was illegal. This motion was renewed after a verdict of guilty was taken, accompanied by a motion for a new trial. The motions were denied.
The defendant attacks the jurisdiction of the court over his person on the ground that the officers, who arrested him without a warrant, had no reasonable cause to believe that he had committed a felony. The motion for a new trial was based on the claim that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence.
We are impressed by neither of these contentions.
The defendant went to trial on his plea of not guilty without objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over his person and thereby waived such objection. He cannot question the legality of his arrest at a later stage in the proceeding. This has long been the rule and the practice.
"While the competency of any court to adjudicate the subject matter may always be questioned, jurisdiction of the person, if not challenged upon appearance, is equivalent to consent." Chapman v. Scott, D.C., 10 F.2d 156, 159, Affirmed 2 Cir., 10 F.2d 690; Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593-606, 47 S.Ct. 531, 71 L.Ed. 793.
Rule 12(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that .
The same rule also provides that, "Lack of jurisdiction or the failure of the indictment or information to charge an offense shall be noticed by the court at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Isaacs
...failure to challenge but subject-matter jurisdiction may not. Sewell v. United States, 8 Cir., 406 F.2d 1289, 1292, and Pon v. United States, 1 Cir., 168 F.2d 373, 374; see also Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 606, 47 S. Ct. 531, 71 L.Ed. Kerner argues that the provisions of Articles I......
-
United States v. Gernie
...United States, 215 F.2d 56, 57 (4 Cir. 1954) (dictum), cert. den., 348 U.S. 939, 75 S.Ct. 360, 99 L.Ed. 735 (1955); Pon v. United States, 168 F.2d 373, 374 (1 Cir. 1948) (dictum); Chapman v. Scott, supra, 10 F.2d at 159 Here the absence of jurisdiction appeared from the undisputed facts in ......
-
Alford v. State
...that lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as opposed to personal jurisdiction, may be raised at any time) (citing Pon v. United States , 168 F.2d 373, 374 (1st Cir.1948) ). Lewis v. State , 229 Md. App. 86, 100–01, 143 A.3d 177 (2016), aff'd , 452 Md. 663, 158 A.3d 982 (2017).As for cases b......
-
United States v. Rosenberg
...v. Bradford, 2 Cir., 1952, 194 F.2d 197. Personal jurisdiction can be waived in a criminal as well as a civil case. See Pon v. United States, 1 Cir., 168 F.2d 373, 374. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S.Ct. 234, 30 L.Ed. 425, cited by Sobell, allowed a defendant to move in arrest......