concluding that 50 C.F.R. § 20, 21(i), the same regulation at issue in this case, was not unconstitutionally vague
How later courts described this case
- concluding that 50 C.F.R. § 20, 21(i), the same regulation at issue in this case, was not unconstitutionally vague
- holding that scienter was not an element of the offense of hunting birds in a baited area
- "In the context of this regulation an operation or procedure is undertaken in good faith if it is done for a purpose related to the growing of crops, for example, erosion control.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the regulation here in issue is not unconstitutionally vague and therefore valid, I would not, on this record, affirm the convictions.
The crucial factual finding in prosecutions arising under the regulation in controversy is the intent of the individual seeding the field.
Although certain of the Magistrate’s findings allude to the issue of intent, these findings were either modified or contradicted in subsequent sections of his report, thereby resulting in patent ambiguity and vagueness as to the operative facts. It is elementary that conviction of a crime, be it a misdemeanor or felony, demands proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Significantly absent from the Magistrate’s report and recommendation to the district court is the articulation of a finding of fact, founded upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fields here in issue were intentionally baited for the sole purpose of attracting doves and were not seeded in accordance with “bona fide agricultural operations or procedures”, a collateral effect of which may be an unintentional attraction for doves.
Accordingly, I would vacate the convictions in both actions and remand for new trials.