Scott v. United States
| Decision Date | 29 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 21016.,21016. |
| Citation | 129 US App. DC 396,395 F.2d 619 |
| Parties | Steven V. SCOTT, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., and Lawrence E. Shinnick, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Arthur L. Burnett, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Mr. Charles W. Petty, Jr. (appointed by this court as amicus curiae) Washington, D. C., filed a brief as amicus curiae.
Before EDGERTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and DANAHER and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied June 18, 1968.
Appellant, arrested when found helplessly drunk in a public place, was found by the arresting officer to have a quantity of fertile marijuana seeds in his possession. He was charged under 33 D.C.Code § 402, which makes it unlawful "for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic drug * * *." When his case came on for trial in General Sessions, a preliminary motion was made to dismiss the charge on the ground that marijuana is not a narcotic drug. The evidence adduced in support of this motion was a simple and unexpanded negative answer by the Government chemist to a question as to whether marijuana is a narcotic drug.1 The judge denied the motion after referring to the definitions contained in 33 D.C.Code § 401(m) and (n), which clearly state that fertile marijuana seeds are to be deemed narcotic drugs within the meaning of Section 402. At the ensuing trial to a jury, appellant renewed this point in a motion for a directed verdict after the presentation of the Government's case. When this motion was denied, appellant's evidence was confined to his own testimony which merely recounted the circumstances of his acquisition of the seeds. Upon a verdict of guilty, sentence of probation for one year was imposed.
This court having allowed an appeal from the order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, appellant urges that a statute which treats marijuana as a narcotic drug is in contravention of due process of law. Amicus curiae, appointed by this court, has filed a comprehensive brief which advances new and different grounds of reversal....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worthy v. United States
...343 U.S. at 750, 72 S.Ct. at 970, footnote 37 And see United States v. Booker, 363 F.2d 856 (2d Cir.); cf. Scott v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 395 F.2d 619, April 29, Other contentions have been considered. They furnish no reason for reversal, and are thought not to require discus......
-
Miller v. State
...cited can be stretched to encompass appellant's contention or to render Article 725b, supra, unconstitutional. See Scott v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 395 F.2d 619. Ground of error #6 is overruled. Appellant also urges that a punishment of ten years constitutes cruel and unusual p......
-
United States v. Thorne, 8349.
...the constitutionality of a statute has the heavy burden of demonstrating that it has no rational basis. See Scott v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 395 F.2d 619 (1968), upholding the constitutionality of the same provisions of the Code challenged In the classic case of United States v......
-
Tracey v. Janco, Civ. A. No. C-72-45-E.
...has also been upheld in the federal courts. See, for example, Rener v. Beto, 447 F.2d 20 (5th Cir. 1971) and Scott v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 395 F.2d 619 (1968). The Petitioner's contention, that the classification, by the West Virginia Legislature, of marijuana as a "narcotic......