United States v. Lee, Crim. No. 9019.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota |
| Citation | 227 F. Supp. 450 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1964 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Lester Clifford LEE, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 9019. |
227 F. Supp. 450
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Lester Clifford LEE, Defendant.
Crim. No. 9019.
United States District Court D. North Dakota, Southeastern Division.
March 20, 1964.
Richard V. Boulger, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fargo, N. D., for plaintiff.
Lyle Huseby, Fargo, N. D., for defendant.
RONALD N. DAVIES, District Judge.
The above-entitled Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment charging that he, being a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, transported in interstate commerce a firearm in violation of Title 15 U.S.C. § 902.
The grounds upon which the Defendant has based his motion are: (1) That it does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States, (2) That a court-martial conviction of carnal knowledge and sodomy is neither a conviction of a crime of violence nor a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year, and (3) That Subsection (e) of § 902 of Title 15 is, as applied to the facts of this indictment, unconstitutional as an ex post facto law.
Grounds (1) and (3) may be disposed of without difficulty. The test as to the sufficiency of the indictment is whether it can reasonably be said to have informed the Defendant of the charge against him so that he may prepare his defense thereto and plead the judgment thereon as a bar to any further proceedings against him for the same offense. The indictment in this case meets the test. Portnoy v. United States, (1 Cir.), 316 F.2d 486. Nor is the provision of the Section referred to, making it an offense to transport a firearm in interstate commerce by one who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, an ex post facto law. Smith v. United States, (10 Cir.), 312 F.2d 119.
It is the second ground for dismissal that causes this Court concern. To state the matter succinctly: Is a court-martial "conviction" a conviction of a crime within the meaning of § 902(e) of the statute? Neither counsel for the Defendant nor the Government has cited any authority directly in point. It is the Defendant's contention that "conviction" as used in this Section relates only to convictions in a state or Federal court as distinguished from a military court. That a distinction exists there can be little doubt, the difference being graphically stated by Mr. Justice Black, speaking for the United States Supreme Court, in Toth v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Henderson, Crim. No. 162-62.
...aff'd, 337 F.2d 609 (2nd Cir. 1964) (construes the word "conviction" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 504); United States v. Lee, 227 F.Supp. 450, 452 (D.N.D.1964) (found a court-martial conviction to fall within the ambit of the term "conviction" as used in 15 U.S.C. § 11 The Web......
-
United States v. Lee, No. 19849.
...of the statute. This contention is without merit. The only case directly in point involved the defendant Lee3. United States v. Lee, 227 F.Supp. 450 (D.N.D., 1964), held that a court martial conviction does come within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 902. We see no reason to construe the statute......
-
State v. Noel, CA-CR
...319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943). See also Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 312 F.2d 119 (1963); United States v. Lee, 227 F.Supp. 450 (D.N.Dak.1964). Davis v. State, 377 P.2d 226 (Okl.Cr.1962); Renfro v. State, 372 P.2d 45 (Okl.Cr.1962); State v. Robinson, 217 Or. 612, 343......
-
Brown v. Clark, Civ. A. No. 67-1278.
...v. United States, 319 U. S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718; Smith v. United States, 312 F.2d 119 (CA 10-1963); United States v. Lee, 227 F. Supp. 450 (D.N.D.-1964); United States v. DePugh, 266 F.Supp. 453 (W.D.Mo.-1967). III A three-judge court should not be convened to determine if L.R......
-
United States v. Henderson, Crim. No. 162-62.
...658 (N.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 337 F.2d 609 (2nd Cir. 1964) (construes the word "conviction" as used in 29 U.S.C. § 504); United States v. Lee, 227 F.Supp. 450, 452 (D.N.D.1964) (found a court-martial conviction to fall within the ambit of the term "conviction" as used in 15 U.S.C. § 11 The Webster......
-
United States v. Lee, No. 19849.
...of the statute. This contention is without merit. The only case directly in point involved the defendant Lee3. United States v. Lee, 227 F.Supp. 450 (D.N.D., 1964), held that a court martial conviction does come within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 902. We see no reason to construe the statute......
-
State v. Noel, CA-CR
...319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943). See also Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 312 F.2d 119 (1963); United States v. Lee, 227 F.Supp. 450 (D.N.Dak.1964). Davis v. State, 377 P.2d 226 (Okl.Cr.1962); Renfro v. State, 372 P.2d 45 (Okl.Cr.1962); State v. Robinson, 217 Or. 612, 343......
-
Brown v. Clark, Civ. A. No. 67-1278.
...v. United States, 319 U. S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718; Smith v. United States, 312 F.2d 119 (CA 10-1963); United States v. Lee, 227 F. Supp. 450 (D.N.D.-1964); United States v. DePugh, 266 F.Supp. 453 (W.D.Mo.-1967). III A three-judge court should not be convened to determine if L.R......