Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Crotchett

Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

Decided May 12, 2009No. NMCCA 200800770Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMaksym, Judge

I dissent. While I concur with the procedural remedy adopted by the majority, I disassociate myself entirely from the substantive rationale for its decision to remand. I conclude that it is premature for this court to determine, within the four corners of the litigation before us whether or not, pursuant to Article 120(c)(2)(C), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 820(c)(2)(C), an accused service member, in asserting an affirmative defense of consent or mistake of fact as to consent, must disprove whether a victim is “substantially incapable of communicating unwillingness to engage…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Montclair v. RamsdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
  2. United States v. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2000
  3. United States v. ChisholmCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2003
  4. United States v. NealNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API