Legal Opinion

United States v. Baba

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided December 2, 1985No. 47,878; NMCM 82-3269PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EVERETT, Chief Judge.

We granted review to consider whether, in two instances, the specifications are multiplicious for findings. 18 M.J. 91.

I

The specification of Charge III alleges that appellant absented himself without authority from his ship and remained *77absent for less than one day. Specification 1 of Charge IV alleges that, on the same day, appellant missed the movement of that ship through design. Under these circumstances, where the length of the unauthorized absence was so minimal as to be inherent in an offense of missing movement, cf. United States v. Campfield, 20 M.J. 246…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ball v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. United States v. BakerUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  3. United States v. MorrisUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1984
  4. United States v. MurrayUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  5. United States v. CampfieldUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1985

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. McGuinnessUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1992
  2. United States v. OlingerNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API