Legal Opinion

United States v. Tyhurst

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided March 17, 1989No. ACM 26944PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION

KASTL, Senior Judge:

Are analog or so-called designer drugs punishable under the current language of Article 112a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 912a? Frequently they are not, we hold today.

Airman First Class (A1C) Tyhurst was found guilty in accordance with his pleas of various drug-related offenses involving cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and lysergic acid diethylamide. In addition, he offered a conditional guilty plea as to use and distribution of N-hydroxy-3, 4-methy-lenedioxy amphetamine. The substance was characterized at trial — wrongly, we are advised — by the street name of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. SalesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986
  2. United States v. McKinleyUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1988
  3. United States v. David Augustine Desurra, and Sammy Lee Smith, United States of America v. Arthur Breaux, IIICourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
  4. Reckitt & Colman, Ltd. v. Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, McNeil Pharmaceutical, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
  5. United States v. StockenU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1984

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. United States v. ReichenbachUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989
  2. United States v. LoftinU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989
  3. United States v. LoftinU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989
  4. United States v. TyhurstU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API