United States v. Bozeman

71 M.J. 295, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 531

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Bozeman. Read the opinion of the Court — 71 M.J. 354 →

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided April 6, 2012·No. No. 12-0264/AR·Published

Opinion

CCA 20080711. Review granted on the following issue:

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE “NECESSARILY IMPLIED” FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS OF CHARGE III CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE SPECIFICATIONS FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

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

CCA 20080711. Review granted on the following issue:

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE “NECESSARILY IMPLIED” FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM THE SPECIFICATIONS OF CHARGE III CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE SPECIFICATIONS FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

United States v. Bozeman, 71 M.J. 295, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 531 (Ark. 2012).

Pincite

71 M.J. 295 (United States v. Bozeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.