Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Clifton Earl Hudspeth v. United States of America
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 223 F.2d 848
June 28, 1955
Jack Love, A. L. Wardlaw, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.
Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. U.S. Atty., Austin, Tex., Russell B. Wine, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tix., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Convicted of violating Section 661, Title 18, denouncing as an offender 'whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,1 takes and carries away, with intent to steal or purloin, any personal property of another', defendant has appealed, assigning as his sole ground of error that the United States failed to prove that the place where the taking occurred was within the 'Special Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States'.
We think it quite clear that the assignment is without merit. Putting to one side the decision of this court in Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 257 F. 46, that if, as was the case here, the place where the offense was committed was sufficiently described, the court will take judicial notice of facts which vest the United States with jurisdiction,2 the record overwhelmingly, indeed conclusively, establishes the jurisdictional facts.
The judgment is affirmed.
Section 7, Title 18 U.S.C. provides in part:
'The term 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States', as used in this title, includes:
'* * * (3) any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dock yard, or other needful building * * *'.
Cf. Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021; and Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 11 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed. 691