United States v. Hayes
United States Court of Military Appeals
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
- Sparf v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States v. McCraryUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1951
- United States v. GinnUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1952
- Famous Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- United States v. BartholomewUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.