Legal Opinion

United States v. Mendoza

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided May 23, 1984No. ACM 24145PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION

RAICHLE, Judge:

Contrary to her pleas, the accused was convicted of two specifications of larceny and conspiracy to commit larceny. She assigns four errors for our consideration. We find it necessary to discuss only two. These are that the case should be remanded to the convening authority for a new action after consideration of the accused’s response to the staff judge advocate’s review and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of conspiracy. Having considered the errors assigned, we affirm.

I

A chronology of events after trial is necessary to fully understand the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. United States v. GoodeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
  3. United States v. MontgomeryUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1970
  4. United States v. KincheloeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  5. United States v. ScolesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1963

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. United States v. MannU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1985
  2. United States v. RappaportU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1984
  3. United States v. BledsoeU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1984
  4. United States v. ChurchU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989
  5. United States v. DaggerU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API