United States v. Gary Kinsey, 505 F.2d 1354 (2d Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Gary Kinsey, 505 F.2d 1354 (2d Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Sanapaw, Roger D. (ca7, 2004-04-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sanapaw, Roger D.
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
No. 03-2786 5 Cir. 1975); United States v. Dinapoli, 519 F.2d 104, 106 (6th Cir. 1975); United States v. Honneus, 508 F.2d 566, 574 (1st Cir. 1974); United States v. Kinsey, 505 F.2d 1354, 1354 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Roger D. Sanapaw
7th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lupo, 652 F.2d at 728 ; Walton, 514 F.2d at 203 ; United States v. Gagnon, 635 F.2d 766, 770 (10th Cir.1980); United States v. Maskeny, 609 F.2d 183, 188 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Kelly, 527 F.2d 961, 964 (9th Cir.1976); United States v. Gavie, 520 F.2d 1346, 1352 (8th Cir.1975); United States v. Dinapoli, 519 F.2d 104, 106 (6th Cir.1975); United States v. Honneus, 508 F.2d 566, 574 (1st Cir.1974); United States v. Kinsey, 505 F.2d 1354, 1354 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. Commonwealth
Ky. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
The Court rejected the argument, reasoning: Although the term marihuana is defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,” there is no requirement that the government establish that the substance in question is actually Cannabis sativa L. or that it is even Cannabis. [United States v.] Spann, 515 F.2d 579 [(10th Cir.1975)]; [United States v.] Kinsey, 505 F.2d 1354 *484 [(2nd Cir.1974)]; United States v. Henley, 502 F.2d 585 (5th Cir.1974); [United States v.] Moore, 330 F.Supp. 684 [(E.D.Pa.1970)].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Gary KINSEY, Appellant
227, Docket 74-2014.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 31, 1974.
505 F.2d 1354
Frank R. Webster, Rochester, N.Y., for appellant., Gerald J. Houlihan, Asst. U. S. Atty., (John T. Elfvin, U. S. Atty., for the W. D. N. Y., on the brief), for appellee.
Mulligan, Danaher, Feinberg.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial before Harold P. Burke, J., in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, Gary Kinsey was found guilty of possession, with intent to distribute, of approximately 107 pounds of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, Kinsey claims it was error for the judge to have instructed the jury that the statutory definition of “marihuana,” which is, in relevant part, “the plant Cannabis sativa L.,” 21 U.S.C. § 802(15), encompassed two other forms of the plant. In United States v. Rothberg, 480 F.2d 534 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 856, 94 S.Ct. 159, 38 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973), this court rejected a similar argument directed against the predecessor of the present statute. Accord, United States v. Moore, 446 F.2d 448 (3d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 909, 92 S.Ct. 1617, 31 L.Ed.2d 820 (1972). This case is apparently the first in this court to press the argument under the new law. Despite the 1970 revisions, we believe that the reasoning of Rothberg still controls, and that under the new law Congress intended to prohibit possession of all varieties of marijuana. Accord, United States v. Gaines, 489 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1974); contra, United States v. Collier, 14 Cr.L. 2501 (D.C.Super.Ct., Mar. 19, 1974). The Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Kinsey possessed marijuana. Appellant’s other contentions are without merit. The judgment is affirmed.