United States v. Yee Fing
| Decision Date | 03 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 2554. |
| Citation | 222 F. 154 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. YEE FING. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
B. K Wheeler, U.S. Atty., of Butte, Mont., and H. G. Murphy, Asst U.S. Atty., of Helena, Mont.
John W Stanton, of Great Falls, Mont., for defendant.
This is a motion for a new trial. Defendant was charged with unlawful importation of smoking opium and with having knowingly received the same. The prosecution introduced evidence that November 21, 1914, in Anaconda, defendant, an aged Chinese garden and laundry laborer of many years' local residence, was taken with 2 3/4 pounds of smoking opium in his possession. Defendant testified that, about that time at night in an alley near Chinatown in Butte, upon an unknown white man's solicitation he purchased the opium, paying therefor $100. Thereupon, upon the prosecution's unopposed motion, the first charge was dismissed and upon the second charge was a verdict of guilty.
Defendant's contention is that the evidence apart from statutory presumptions is insufficient to sustain the verdict, and that said presumptions should be rejected as unconstitutional in that their application deprives defendant of liberty and property without due process of law.
The statute of February 9, 1909, prohibits importation of opium after April 1, 1909, save that opium for medicinal purposes and other than smoking opium can be imported under regulations. Unlawful importation and knowingly receiving such opium are offenses and incur forfeiture and punishment and upon trial therefor possession of such opium 'shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the possession to the satisfaction of the jury.' 35 Stat. 614. The statute of January 17, 1914, provides that on and after July 1, 1913, all smoking opium 'found within the United States shall be presumed to have been imported after the first day of April, 1909, and the burden of proof shall be on the claimant or the accused to rebut such presumption.' 38 Stat. 276.
These statutes provide for presumptions or prima facie proof of the offense, which, while sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty, may or may not be sufficient to satisfy the jury of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. They are but what are commonly styled rules of evidence and not substantive law creating offenses, and do not deprive the jury of its function of weighing evidence and determining facts. Though the accused presents no evidence, the circumstances inevitably appearing in the prosecution's evidence may often be such that the jury will and should refuse to draw the inferences these statutes authorize, but do not and probably could not command, in that it is not satisfied they should be drawn-- not convinced that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Like presumptions are familiar to common and statutory law in England and this country, in the former prior to emigration of our ancestry and now. So too, to civil law. They dictate the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grimmett
...40 Utah 72, 119 P. 1030; Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 34 S.Ct. 10, 58 L.Ed. 101, see, also, Rose's U. S. Notes; United States v. Yee Fing, 222 F. 154.) accessory after the fact is not an accomplice. (State v. Roberts, 15 Ore. 187, 13 P. 896; State v. Grant, 26 Idaho 189, 140 P. 959; ......
-
United States v. Sam Chin
...said period and to the knowledge of any receiving it is not unreasonable to the extent hereinbefore indicated." United States v. Yee Fing, D.C.Mont., 222 F. 154, 156. Furthermore section 181 of Title 21 U.S.C., 21 U.S.C.A. § 181, provides: "Opium prepared for smoking found within the United......
-
State v. Dowell
...of Congress to create, it is well settled. Luria v. U. S., 231 U. S. 9-25, 34 S. Ct. 10, 58 L. Ed. 101; United States v. Yee Fing (D. C.) 222 F. 154." In Casey v. United States, 48 S. Ct. 373, 72 L. Ed.-, Mr. Justice Holmes, delivering the opinion of the court (April 9, 1928) construing sai......
-
Brightman v. United States
...Hem v. United States, 268 U. S. 178, 45 S. Ct. 470, 69 L. Ed. ___; Gee Woe v. United States, 250 F. 428, 162 C. C. A. 498; United States v. Yee Fing (D. C.) 222 F. 154; United States v. Ah Hung (D. C.) 243 F. 762; Baender v. United States, 260 F. 832, 171 C. C. A. 558; Fiunkin v. United Sta......