Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Meeks

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided September 30, 1994No. 93-0569; CMR No. 29398Published

1ConcurrenceSullivan, Chief Judge

I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the instruction on physical inability was not required in this case. However, I am unable to base my conclusion on this Court’s out-dated opinion in United States v. Latsis, 5 USCMA 596, 18 CMR 220 (1955). Latsis was decided at a time when the Government was required to prove the accused’s mental responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Today, however, the accused must demonstrate “by clear and convincing evidence” that he is not mentally responsible. United States v. Lilly, 25 MJ 403, 406 n. 4 (CMA 1988); Art. 50a, Uniform Code of Military…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Stansbury v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. United States v. LeeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
  5. United States v. SchakeUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990

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

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

Powered by the Exa API