Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Murphy

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided July 8, 2015No. 14-0767/ARPublished

1ConcurrenceErdmann, Judge

I concur with the majority’s decision that there is no substantial basis in law or fact for questioning Murphy’s guilty plea, including his agreement that the ammunition was an explosive and therefore subject to the sentence aggravator provisions of MCM pt. IV, para. 46.e.(l)(c). I depart from the majority, however, as to the rationale for that conclusion. Due to the ambiguities in the definition of “Explosive” in R.C.M. 801(11), it is not at all clear that 5.56 mm ammunition is an explosive under R.C.M. 103(11). However, I do not believe that holding ammunition to be an explosive is…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cleveland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. KickUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1979
  3. United States v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1998
  4. United States v. BeatyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2011
  5. United States v. MurphyCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2015

2 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