, In United States v. Taylor, 47 MJ 322, (1997), this Court held: When prejudicial error occurs at trial, the Court, of Criminal Appeals may reassess the sentence instead of ordering a sentencing, rehearing if the court is convinced that appellant
In the case of, UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Andre T. HARGROVE, Specialist, U. S. Army, Appellant, No. 99-0346, Crim.having received a lawful command from Captain, [D.G.s, failure to appear at the scheduled times and sign in constituted the gravamen, of the offenses at issue.
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Ross A. MCFADYEN, Senior Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant, No. 99-0129/AF, Crim.Judge EFFRON delivered the opinion of the Court. UNITED STATES v. RIVERA, 46 MJ 52 (1997) ;After a pretrial confinement hearing, appellant, was ordered into confinement pending trial.
, Appellant has petitioned this Court for a grant, of review, contending that prejudicial error occurred when the staff judge, advocate (SJA) failed to discuss a recommendation by the military judge, that the convening authority waive a portion of the forfeitures.10 USC ยง 860 (1983).
Russell B. STEELE, Private First Class, U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant, v., Paul K. VAN RIPER, Lieutenant General, U.S., Marine Corps, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command;while the discharge remained in abeyance pending appellate review. United States v. Speller, supra;
Judge EFFRON delivered the opinion of the Court. United States v. Boatner, 20 U.S.C.M.A. Given the use in Article 60(d) of, the well-understood terms staff judge advocate and legal officer, the, error in obtaining a recommendation from a person who did not meet the, statutory criteria was plain.
including records of nonjudicial punishment. The lower court , In a judge-alone trial, if the accused offers the record of a prior NJP, for the purposes of evidence in mitigation during sentencing, the military, judge will state on the record the specific credit awarded for the prior, punishment.
IN THE CASE OF, UNITED STATES, Appellant, v., Timothy B. GIBSON, Corporal, U.S. Army, Appellee, No. 98-5030, Crim.s, case file, including witness statements, witness lists, CID reports, lab, reports, photos, and physical evidence.Before this Court, the Government argues that, defense counsel
UNITED STATES, Appellant, v., Larry D. STUART, Jr., Senior Airman, U.S. Air Force, Appellee, No. 98-5029, Crim.I. WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL, APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING CORRECTIVE ACTION WITHOUT A SPECIFIC FINDING, OF PREJUDICE TO THE SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS OF THE APPELLEE.
, Although no questions were asked of either, CPT Dougherty or CPT Ali during group voir dire, the defense, sought to question each of them out of the presence of the other members., As to LTC Russi, Judge Young did not abuse, his discretion in refusing to allow counsel other courts have not.
Defense counsel questioned her about her, relationship with GMMSN Smith and asked her whether GMMSN Smith was jealous, or merely protective when he told her to kick appellant out of her room. he merely ruled that trial counsel could mention the evidence, in his opening statement.
Finally, he avers that the SJA (Lt Col Dent) after trial dissuaded, a court member from providing a letter for appellant s article constituted unlawful, command influence on the general court-martial authority and his SJA who, were then reviewing this case in Texas.
United States, Appellee, v., Jason E. NELSON, Private, U.S. Army, Appellant, No. 98-1109, Crim.s, statements made during a providence inquiry, we have stated: [T]here is, no demonstrative right or wrong way to introduce evidence taken during, a guilty plea inquiry....
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Mark E. GRIGGS, Religious Program Specialist, Second Class, U.S. Navy, Appellant, No. 98-1076, Crim. The acts alleged at this court-martial were well supported by the, testimony of three victims who described very similar incidents of indecent, exposure by appellant.
, The issue in this case is whether the, evidence supporting appellant's position that he did not intend to stab, Lane put in issue any element of the offense of assault with a dangerous, weapon that would distinguish that offense from an assault consummated, by a battery.
because the state law would effectively rewrite an offense definition that, Congress carefully considered, or because federal statutes reveal an intent, to occupy so much of a field as would exclude use of the particular state, statute at issue . See, United States v. Prater, 32 MJ 433 (CMA 1991).
IN THE CASE OF, UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Daniel H. CARPENTER, Disbursing Clerk First, Class, U.S. Navy, Appellant, No. 98-1050, Crim. Expert testimony established that LTJG Meier Agard was not a plain error, case, because defense counsel objected to the argument and asked for a, mistrial.
IN THE CASE OF, United States, Appellee, v., Mark J. MAYO, Specialist, U.S. Army, Appellant, No. 98-1022, Crim., We granted an issue that was personally raised, by appellant, in which he asks us to rule that the evidence was legally, insufficient to support his conviction for assault on a child.
IN THE CASE OF, UNITED STATES, Appellee, v., Robert C. MARINE, Lance Corporal, U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant, No. 98-1021, Crim.Judge SULLIVAN delivered the opinion of the, Court. and his person was searched and the marijuana cigarette discovered, pursuant to a lawful search incident to that arrest.
Appellant, does not claim a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and, public trial under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Barker, v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), or a violation of RCM 707. United States v. Kossman, 38 MJ 258, 262, (CMA 1993).
