United States v. Berry

2 C.M.A. 374, 2 USCMA 374, 9 C.M.R. 4, 1953 CMA LEXIS 901, 1953 WL 2591
United States Court of Military Appeals·Decided April 14, 1953·No. No. 1495·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused was convicted by general court-martial in Korea of two charges of absence without leave,1 and one charge of possessing a hypodermic needle in violation of a lawful general order.2 The findings and sentence have been affirmed by intermediate reviewing authorities. This Court granted accused’s petition for review, limited, however, to the following issue:

“Whether the prosecution was required to allege and prove that possession of the alleged hypodermic needle was without proper authority and for purposes other than enumerated by the General Order.”

Accused contends that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to allege and prove that his possession was not within the exceptions specified in the applicable general order. Identical contentions were resolved against the accused in United States v. Gohagen (No. 858), 7 CMR 51, decided February 6, 1953. As we decided in that case, the exceptions in the general order are not parts of the conduct proscribed therein at all. It is incumbent on the accused to bring himself within the exceptions if he is able to do so.

Further discussion is unnecessary in light of our opinion in the Gohagen case. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Berry, 2 C.M.A. 374, 2 USCMA 374, 9 C.M.R. 4, 1953 CMA LEXIS 901, 1953 WL 2591 (cma 1953).

2 C.M.A. 374 (United States v. Berry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Caballero
23 C.M.A. 304 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1975)
United States v. Tee
20 C.M.A. 406 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1971)