U.S. v. Debevoise
| Decision Date | 18 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1258,85-1258 |
| Citation | 799 F.2d 1401 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Michael DEBEVOISE, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Anthony James, Special Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff/appellee.
Hayden Aluli, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, Hawaii, for defendant/appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before MERRILL, WIGGINS, and JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr. Circuit Judges.
Debevoise, then a member of the United States Army, drove a vehicle while drunk within the confines of a United States military installation in Hawaii. Driving while drunk is in violation of the statutes of Hawaii. Hawaii Rev. Stat. Sec. 291-4 (1985). The Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 13 (1982), provides that, on a military base or other federal enclave, "[w]hoever ... is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State ... in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment."
A federal magistrate convicted Debevoise of violating Hawaii law, made applicable through the ACA.
Debevoise challenges the jurisdiction of the federal court, claiming that driving a vehicle while intoxicated within a military installation is "made punishable by [an] enactment of Congress" and that the ACA for this reason does not apply. While there is no federal law generally making drunk driving a federal crime, Article 111 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. Sec. 911, provides, "Any person subject to this chapter who operates any vehicle while drunk, or in a reckless or wanton manner, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." Debevoise contends that the UCMJ prevents application of the ACA to military personnel who drive while drunk on federal property.
The First and Fourth Circuits have held to the contrary. United States v. Mariea, 795 F.2d 1094 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Walker, 552 F.2d 566, 568 n. 3 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 848, 98 S.Ct. 157, 54 L.Ed.2d 116 (1977). In holding the ACA to apply, Mariea cites: (1) legislative history showing that the ACA was intended to operate when there was no generally applicable federal criminal law; (2) the ACA's purpose to make state law apply uniformly to crimes committed inside and outside federal enclave boundaries; (3) the desire to equalize treatment between military and civilian defendants accused of identical non-service related crimes, see also, United States v. Lee, 786 F.2d 951, 958-59 (9th Cir.1986) (Skopil, J., concurring); (4) the fact that the UCMJ serves a very different function from and is not meant to replace the general criminal law; (5) the principle that federal and military courts have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed by military personnel; and (6) the preference for prosecuting essentially civilian offenses in the district courts, see Lee, supra, at 958 (). The courts in Mariea and Walker concluded that Congress, in enacting the ACA, intended "any enactment of Congress" to refer only to enactments of general applicability and not to enactments such as Article 111 of the UCMJ.
We agree. In a case not involving the UCMJ, this court has approvingly cited Walker to support application of the ACA because "there is no express enactment of Congress providing punishment for drunk driving," noting that the ACA applies "except in cases of specific federal crimes." United States v. Best, 573 F.2d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.1978). See also United States v. Marcyes, 557 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir.1977).
We conclude that the magistrate was not in error in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Williams
...cert. denied, 434 U.S. 848 (1977) (citing cases); Mariea, 795 F.2d at1101 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and cases); United States v. Debevoise, 799 F.2d 1401, 1403 (9th Cir. 1986); see also United States v. Fulkerson, 631 F. Supp. 319, 321-24 (D. Haw. 1986). The district court in Fulkerson also ......
-
U.S. v. Talbot
...election generally resolved by considerations of comity and relevant military and civilian interests. See, e.g., United States v. Debevoise, 799 F.2d 1401, 1403 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Mariea, 795 F.2d 1094, 1101 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Colon-Padilla, 770 F.2d 1328, 1330-3......
-
US v. Carlson
...manner which upholds the "preference for prosecuting essentially civilian offenses in the district courts ..." United States v. Debevoise, 799 F.2d 1401, 1402-1403 (9th Cir.1986), citing with approval United States v. Mariea, 795 F.2d 1094 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Walker, 552 F.2d 5......
-
US v. Pyatt, Crim. No. 89-00370-A.
...to penal enactments of general applicability); United States v. Brotzman, 708 F.Supp. 713 (D.Md.1989); compare United States v. Debevoise, 799 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.1986) (Uniform Code of Military Justice Article is not within the scope of the phrase "any enactment of Congress" as used in the ......
-
The offense
...rather than under 10 U.S.C. §911, the drunk driving provision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See United States v. Debevoise , 799 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1986), and United States v. Mariea , 795 F.2d 1094 (1st Cir. 1986), both holding that provisions in the Uniform Code of Military Ju......
-
OPTIMIZING MILITARY INSTALLATION JURISDICTION.
...Cir. 1986); United States v. Walker, 552 F.2d 566, 568 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 848 (1977); United States v. Debevoise, 799 F.2d 1401, 1402-3 (9th Cir. [128] Id. (Mariea, Walker, and Debevoise hold that a penal offense under the UCMJ does not bar prosecution of a service memb......