Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Hayes

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided January 31, 1958No. 9784Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLatimeR, Judge

I concur in part and dissent in part.

I agree with my associates that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilty as to specification 9, but it is unfortunate for the Services that the doctrine in United States v Krawczyk, 4 USCMA 255, 15 CMR 255, and associated cases, is discredited by visionary illustrative cases which are not before us. At no time have we held that changing money is a crime, and neither have we announced a rule that borrowing a book without prior consent of the owner is an offense. In the former illustration, there is no fact to support an intent to deprive…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sparf v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. United States v. McCraryUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1951
  3. United States v. GinnUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1952
  4. Famous Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  5. United States v. BartholomewUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1952

5 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