United States v. Anderson, No. 447

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: RUTLEDGE
• Citation: 66 S.Ct. 1213,328 U.S. 699,90 L.Ed. 1529
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON
• Docket Number: No. 447
• Decision Date: 10 June 1946

328 U.S. 699 66 S.Ct. 1213 90 L.Ed. 1529 UNITED STATES

v.

ANDERSON.

No. 447. Argued March 26, 1946. Decided June 10, 1946.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington.

Mr. Nathan T. Elliff, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE delivered the opinion of the Court.

On the merits the issue is narrow, namely, whether in a criminal prosecution under § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act, 54 Stat. 885, 894, 50 U.S.C.App. § 311, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 311, for refusal to submit to induction, the venue is properly laid in the judicial district where the act of refusal occurred

Page 700

rather than in the district where the draft board which issued the order is located.

The facts in the case are simple. A draft board in the City of Spokane, Washington, had jurisdiction over appellee. He obeyed an order to report for induction issued by this board and, with others selected, went from Spokane to Fort Lewis, Washington. At Fort Lewis he refused to take the oath of induction unless assured that Army regulations requiring vaccination would be waived. The assurance was refused. He was not inducted and returned to Spokane. Later he was indicted in the District Court for the Western District of Washington, where Fort Lewis is located, for his refusal to submit to induction.

Appellee demurred to the indictment. One ground was that the court had 'no jurisdiction of the defendant or the subject matter of the action.' The District Court took judicial notice that, although Fort Lewis was within its territorial jurisdiction, the City of Spokane was located within the Eastern District of Washington. Believing the proper venue was the district where the draft board was located, the court concluded that in these circumstances it had no jurisdiction over the offense. Accordingly, it sustained the demurrer.¹ 60 F.Supp. 649.

The United States has appealed directly to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act.² We postponed determination of our jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 66 S.Ct. 145.

The Criminal Appeals Act permits a direct appeal by the United States from district courts in criminal cases:

'From a decision or judgment quashing, setting aside, or sustaining a demurrer or plea in abatement

Page 701

to any indictment or information, or any count thr eof, where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment or information is founded.'

We think the Government is correct in availing itself of the right to appeal. Ordinarily when a district court sustains a demurrer to an indictment on the ground of improper venue the Government may appeal directly to this Court. Compare United States v. Johnson, D.C., 53 F.Supp. 596, with United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 65 S.Ct. 249, 89 L.Ed. 236; United States v. Lombardo, D.C., 228 F. 980, with United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 36 S.Ct. 508, 60 L.Ed. 897; see United States v. Freeman, 239 U.S. 117, 36 S.Ct. 32, 60 L.Ed. 172; United States v. Midstate Horticultural Co., 306 U.S. 161, 59 S.Ct. 412, 83 L.Ed. 563. This is true at any rate where the statute itself contains a venue provision. Cf., however, United States v. Johnson, supra.

Section 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act³ provides that offenses such as the one with which appellee

Page 702

was charged shall be tried 'in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof.'⁴ The District Court determined that it did not have 'jurisdiction' of the offense. In doing so it necessarily construed the Act.⁵ For in this case, as in United States v. Midstate Horticultural Co., supra, the statute under which the indictment was returned 'provides expressly for the jurisdiction over offenses created by it * * *.'⁶

Accordingly this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal. We therefore pass to consideration of the merits.

The 'jurisdictional' provision in § 11 is apparently derived from the Selective Draft Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 76, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 201 et seq. ⁷

Page 703

Section 6 of that statute provided that those charged with offenses under or against the Act 'shall, if not subject to military law, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year.' (Emphasis added.) The legislative history of the 1917 Act shows that the bills originally introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives read somewhat differently. The language was 'upon conviction in the proper district court of the United States.' However, the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives recommended the change in phraseology,⁸ and both the House and the Senate accepted the change.⁹

There is nothing in either the statute or the legislative history to show an intention on the part of Congress to depart from the Sixth Amendment's command that trials shall be in the 'State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.' Exactly the contrary was the purpose and effect of the provision.

Since the statute does not indicate where Congress considered the place of committing the crime to be, compare Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 28 S.Ct. 428, 52 L.Ed. 681, with United States v. Johnson, supra, the locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it. Cf. United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39, 40, 41, 67 L.Ed. 149.

Although Anderson reported to Fort Lewis in accordance with the draft board's order and, so far as appears

Page 704

observed it in every other respect except the final step of taking the oath and thus submitting to induction, cf. Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114, 66 S.Ct. 423; Billings v. Truesdell, 321 U.S. 542, 64 S.Ct. 737, 88 L.Ed. 917; Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549, 64 S.Ct. 346, 88 L.Ed. 305, the District Court concluded that the Act, together with the regulations, 'clearly fixes the jurisdiction of the courts in reference to violations such as here involved, as being in the place where the local draft board is located.' (60 F.Supp. 651.) It supported this conclusion by inference from various regulations.¹⁰

We think the District Court was in error. Nothing in the Act apart from § 11, or in the regulations relied on, even purports to deal with venue or jurisdiction for the trial of violations, or justifies an inference that any effort was made to...