Legal Opinion

United States v. Davis

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided May 9, 2017No. 16-0306/ARPublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judge RYAN

delivered the opinion of the Court.

To the extent that United States v. Taylor, 26 M.J. 127 (C.M.A. 1988), holds that an accused’s right to a required instruction on findings is not waived (that is, extinguished on appeal) by a failure to object without more, it remains good law. See, e.g., United States v. Stanley, 71 M.J. 60, 62-64 (C.A.A.P. 2012) (holding that the accused’s failure to object to the military judge’s failure to give an affirmative defense instruction did not constitute waiver, but that the instruction was not required in that case); cf. United States v. Gutierrez,…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Payne v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. United States v. Sergeant ERIC F. KELLYArmy Court of Criminal Appeals · 2017
  2. United States v. Chief Warrant Officer Four ELMER F. HOFFMAN, IIIArmy Court of Criminal Appeals · 2017
  3. United States v. FelicianoCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2017
  4. United States v. ClifftU S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals · 2018
  5. U.S. V.WILEYNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2017

60 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