United States v. Beauchamp

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

United States v. Beauchamp

17 M.J. 590, 1983 CMR LEXIS 739

CourtU.S. Army Court of Military Review

DecidedOctober 31, 1983

DocketCM 443900

StatusPublished

This text of 17 M.J. 590 (United States v. Beauchamp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Army Court of Military Review primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Beauchamp, 17 M.J. 590, 1983 CMR LEXIS 739 (usarmymilrev 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 869, The Judge Advocate General referred this case to us for review under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866.

Contrary to his pleas, the appellant was convicted at a bench trial of willfully disobeying the lawful command of his Division Commander, Major General (MG) Thurman E. Anderson, to testify fully and truthfully at the special court-martial of another soldier (Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 890). The order was personally signed by MG Anderson and contained a grant of immunity. The appellant was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for nine months, total forfeitures, and reduction to Private E — 1. MG Anderson convened the general court-martial which tried the appellant, reviewed the record of trial, and subsequently ordered the sentence into execution.

The appellant now contends that MG Anderson was an accuser within the meaning of Article 1(9), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 801(9), and hence was disqualified from acting as convening authority. The Government concedes MG Anderson was so disqualified and joins the appellant’s prayer to set aside the findings and dismiss the charges. We agree with the parties that MG Anderson’s interest in punishing disobedience of his own order constituted sufficient personal interest to result in his disqualification. United States v. Marsh, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 48, 11 C.M.R. 48 (C.M.A.1953). There are, as the Court of Military Appeals has recognized, “easy and adequate means” to transfer jurisdiction in cases such as this, and doubts “should be resolved in favor of the accused.” United States v. Gordon, 1 U.S.C.M.A. 256, 261, 2 C.M.R. 161, 167 (C.M.A.1952).

Under the specific facts of this case, rather than ordering a rehearing, the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. The charges are dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to Article 69, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 869, The Judge Advocate General referred this case to us for review under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866.

Contrary to his pleas, the appellant was convicted at a bench trial of willfully disobeying the lawful command of his Division Commander, Major General (MG) Thurman E. Anderson, to testify fully and truthfully at the special court-martial of another soldier (Article 90, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 890). The order was personally signed by MG Anderson and contained a grant of immunity. The appellant was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for nine months, total forfeitures, and reduction to Private E — 1. MG Anderson convened the general court-martial which tried the appellant, reviewed the record of trial, and subsequently ordered the sentence into execution.

The appellant now contends that MG Anderson was an accuser within the meaning of Article 1(9), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 801(9), and hence was disqualified from acting as convening authority. The Government concedes MG Anderson was so disqualified and joins the appellant’s prayer to set aside the findings and dismiss the charges. We agree with the parties that MG Anderson’s interest in punishing disobedience of his own order constituted sufficient personal interest to result in his disqualification. United States v. Marsh, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 48, 11 C.M.R. 48 (C.M.A.1953). There are, as the Court of Military Appeals has recognized, “easy and adequate means” to transfer jurisdiction in cases such as this, and doubts “should be resolved in favor of the accused.” United States v. Gordon, 1 U.S.C.M.A. 256, 261, 2 C.M.R. 161, 167 (C.M.A.1952).

Under the specific facts of this case, rather than ordering a rehearing, the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. The charges are dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 M.J. 590, 1983 CMR LEXIS 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-beauchamp-usarmymilrev-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack