Legal Opinion

United States v. Hopwood

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided August 2, 1989No. ACM 27437PublishedCited by 1 opinion

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

  1. United States v. BakerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  2. United States v. StrandUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1955
  3. United States v. BolesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
  4. United States v. FarleyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1960
  5. The People v. MoyerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1971

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United States v. HopwoodUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API