Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Killion

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided April 19, 2016No. 15-0425/AFPublished

1Dissent

Judge STUCKY,

dissenting.

I concur with Judge Ohlson that the instructional error should be reviewed for plain error and, that under such review, Appellant failed to demonstrate error that was obvious, let alone prejudice. I write separately to suggest that, regardless of the outcome of this case, the Court should reconsider its provoking words jurisprudence.

Appellant was convicted of violating Article 117, Uniform Code of .Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 917 (2012): “Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. United States v. ShropshireUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1971
  3. United States v. ThompsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API