Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

United States v. King

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided February 21, 1992No. 66,316; CM 9000332PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court

COX, Judge:

This appeal requires us to decide whether a particular specification drawn under *96Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934, states an offense. Specification 2 of Charge II alleges that appellant

did ... wrongfully have sexual intercourse with Private First Class ... [name], a woman not his wife.

Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that an offense was not stated.

I

For reasons not apparent to us, both trial counsel and the military judge continually referred to the foregoing as an “adultery” specification. Adultery has these elements:(1)…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. BerryUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1956
  2. United States v. CliftonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  3. United States v. WatkinsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986
  4. United States v. SnyderUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1952
  5. United States v. HicksonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1986

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. United States v. FoslerCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2011
  2. United States v. RapertCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2016
  3. United States v. WilsonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1992
  4. United States v. GoddardNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 1997
  5. United States v. FoslerNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2010

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API