Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Smith

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided September 29, 1998No. 97-1124; Crim.App. No. 32374Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawford, Judge

The majority overlooks how offenses involving “military property” are pled; ignores the referral order of the convening authority; penalizes the bench and bar for following our precedent; jettisons prior precedent as to parallels between the military and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and overlooks the changes to Article 32(d), UCMJ, 10 USC § 32(d).

Overlooks pleadings. A sample specification as amended in this case is as follows:

In that Senior Airman James A. Smith, United States Air Force, 100th Comptroller Squadron, RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom, did, at RAF Mildenhall, United…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1995
  2. United States v. MorenoCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API