United States v. Grans, 72-2636.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-2636.,72-2636. |
| Citation | 472 F.2d 597 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Marshal GRANS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jerry E. Berg (argued), Palo Alto, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Joseph E. Reeves (argued), F. Steele Langford, Janet Aiken, Asst. U. S. Attys., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KOELSCH, CHOY, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
William Marshal Grans appeals his conviction in a court trial for willful failure to report for induction, a violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(a). He challenges on hearsay grounds the receipt in evidence of a duly certified copy of his selective service record, and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Neither point is well taken.
A properly authenticated selective service file, which this one is, may be received into evidence in this circuit as an exception to the hearsay rule. United States v. Lloyd, 431 F.2d 160, 163 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 911, 91 S.Ct. 2210, 29 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971); Haven v. United States, 403 F.2d 384 (9th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 393 U.S. 1114, 89 S.Ct. 926, 22 L.Ed.2d 120 (1969).
With the selective service file in evidence, the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence evaporates.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Richardson
...file. The entry was admissible under 28 U.S.C. § 1733(a). United States v. Hudson, 479 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Grans, 472 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1972). Appellant contends that a prima facie showing that his I-A classification was without basis in fact is a defense to a prosec......
-
Hara v. U.S.
...Service file was admissible under 28 U.S.C. 1733(a), citing United States v. Hudson, 479 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1972) and United States v. Grans, 472 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1972) in support thereof. Judge Hufstedler in her dissent in Richardson, supra, although recognizing that 'Hudson permitted th......
-
United States v. Simmons, 72-2174.
...selective service file may be received into evidence in this Circuit as an exception to the hearsay rule. E. g., United States v. Grans, 472 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1972). The appellant also asserts that comments concerning the file by the Assistant United States Attorney permitted by the trial ......
- United States v. Baltierra-Frausto, 72-2946.