Legal Opinion

United States v. Ticehurst

U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review

Decided November 27, 1991No. NMCM 91 1340PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

REED, Judge:

We have examined the record of trial, the assignment of error,1 and the Government’s reply thereto, and have concluded that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant was committed.

The actions of appellant relevant to the only assignment of error involve two separate instances when a marijuana cigarette was smoked by appellant and then was passed by him to friends, once in a barracks room and once in an automobile. Based on this scenario appellant was charged with use and with…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. United States v. BakerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  3. United States v. FruscellaUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1971
  4. United States v. TraederUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1991
  5. United States v. SmithUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. SpeerU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API