Toussie v. United States
397 U.S. 112 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of failing to register for the draft is not a continuing offense; the five-year statute of limitations begins to run when the individual first fails to register within the time prescribed. The continuing offense doctrine should only be applied when the explicit language of a statute or the inherent nature of the crime compels it.
Facts:
- Robert Toussie was an American citizen born on June 23, 1941.
- Under the Universal Military Training and Service Act and an associated presidential proclamation, male citizens were required to register for the draft on their 18th birthday or within five days thereafter.
- Toussie's legal obligation to register for the draft fell between June 23, 1959, and June 28, 1959.
- Toussie did not present himself for registration during this five-day period.
- Toussie remained unregistered at all times after the initial five-day registration window closed.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 3, 1967, almost eight years after his initial failure to register, Robert Toussie was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- Toussie filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the five-year statute of limitations had expired.
- The District Court denied the motion, ruling that failure to register was a continuing offense that lasted until age 26, making the indictment timely.
- Following a jury trial, Toussie was convicted of failing to register for the draft.
- Toussie (appellant) appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing with the continuing offense theory.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the five-year statute of limitations bar the prosecution of a defendant for failing to register for the draft when the indictment is brought more than five years after his initial failure to register, but before his 31st birthday?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The five-year statute of limitations bars the prosecution because the failure to register for the draft is not a continuing offense. Criminal limitation statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose, and the doctrine of continuing offenses should be applied only in limited circumstances. The draft statute does not explicitly state that failure to register is a continuing offense, and its legislative history suggests registration was historically viewed as an instantaneous act. An administrative regulation describing the duty as 'continuing' cannot, on its own, transform a single act into an ongoing crime for the purpose of extending the congressionally mandated statute of limitations. Absent clear statutory language or an inherently continuous nature like conspiracy, the offense is complete when the initial failure occurs, and the limitations period begins to run at that point.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice White
No. The prosecution is not barred because the failure to register for the draft is a continuing offense that lasts until the individual reaches age 26. The statute imposes a duty on men between the ages of 18 and 26, which by its natural reading implies a continuing obligation. This interpretation is supported by a valid Selective Service regulation explicitly stating that the duty to register 'shall continue at all times.' The entire purpose of registration is to maintain a manpower pool for induction, a purpose which is defeated if the duty to register simply evaporates after five days. It is illogical to conclude that a man remains liable for military service until age 26, but his duty to complete the first necessary step—registration—does not.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strong presumption against construing federal criminal statutes as creating 'continuing offenses' for statute of limitations purposes. It clarifies that unless Congress explicitly designates a crime as continuing, or the nature of the crime is inherently ongoing (like conspiracy), the limitations period begins when the criminal act is first complete. The ruling significantly limits the power of administrative agencies to effectively extend statutes of limitations through regulations. This precedent forces Congress to be explicit in its statutory language if it intends for the prosecution window for an offense to remain open for an extended period based on a 'continuing' violation theory.
Unlock the full brief for Toussie v. United States