United States v. Yarbrough
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
2Per curiam
During the accused’s court-martial, evidence of three nonjudieial punishments was admitted and considered.* One punishment had been imposed more than two years prior to the commission of the offense of which the accused stands convicted; thus, it did not qualify for admission at trial. Air Force Manual 111-1, Military Justice Guide, paragraph 5-13, 25 August 1975, Change 4 (13 May 1980).
Despite defense failure to object to this evidence at trial, we find that its admission rises to the level of plain error contemplated by Mil.R.Evid. 103(d). United States v. Morales, 1 M.J. 87, 23…
3Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. Milton L. McCaskillCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
- United States v. Laurence M. Anderson, United States of America v. Adrian Volk, United States of America v. Robert Lee JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
- United States v. Rex Edward DarlandCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- United States v. MoralesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
- United States v. BeaudionU.S. Army Court of Military Review · 1981
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. BoldenUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. MoralesUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- United States v. BennettU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1989