United States v. Zupancic
United States Court of Military Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCook, Senior Judge
I
Since, as the record of trial clearly reveals, the possession of marihuana (specification 1, Charge I) occurred at the same time and place and was based on the same underlying facts as both the introduction of marihuana (specification 2, Charge I) and the possession of marihuana with intent to distribute (specification of Charge II), and since some possession of marihuana is implicit in or included within each of these other offenses, I agree with my Brothers’ conclusion that specification 1 of Charge I was multiplicious with these other offenses. United States v. Baker, 14 M.J. 361, 371…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Albernaz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Iannelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- American Tobacco Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.