Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Accordino

U S Air Force Court of Military Review

Decided March 1, 1983No. ACM S25705Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHodgson, Chief Judge

My disagreement with Judge Miller’s opinion lies in his conclusion that Dugan possessed sufficient knowledge to identify a “rock-like substance, light beige in color” as cocaine. Dugan stated that he had no experience with cocaine prior to his encounter with the accused and her husband, John. He further indicated he thought the substance was cocaine because John said it was, and because it “numbed” his nose and tongue and'gave him a “rush.” This latter physiological reaction could also be obtained from non-controlled drugs that were available in the MacDill area. I am aware that an accused’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. BruceUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  2. United States v. FosterUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1982
  3. United States v. WeinsteinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1969
  4. United States v. NewakU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1982
  5. United States v. CourtsU S Coast Guard Court of Military Review · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API