United States v. Hopwood
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
KASTL, Senior Judge:
In United States v. Thomas, 25 M.J. 396 (C.M.A.1988), Chief Judge Everett closely analyzed the military crime of forgery; he cautioned that “Article 123, in its present form, creates a trap for unwary prosecutors, in that the legal efficacy requirement may be overlooked.” Id. at 402. In the case before us, we find that the prosecution avoided that booby trap. We hold that the credit application involved here satisfied the “legal efficacy requirement” and was a proper subject of forgery.
Despite pleas of not guilty, the appellant was found guilty by a general…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. BakerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. StrandUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1955
- United States v. BolesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
- United States v. FarleyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1960
- The People v. MoyerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1971
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. HopwoodUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990