United States v. Conrady

70 M.J. 372, 2011 CAAF LEXIS 881
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Conrady. Read the opinion of the Court — 71 M.J. 350
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided October 7, 2011·No. No. 11-0475/AR·Published

Opinions

CCA 20080534. Review granted on the following specified issues:

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR SODOMY WITH A CHILD (SPECIFICATION 3 OF CHARGE II), AND INDECENT ACTS WITH A CHILD (SPECIFICATION 7 OF CHARGE III) “ON DIVERS OCCASIONS.”
WHETHER AN ARTICLE 134 CLAUSE 1 OR 2 SPECIFICATION THAT FAILS TO EXPRESSLY ALLEGE EITHER POTENTIAL TERMINAL ELEMENT STATES AN OFFENSE UNDER THE SUPREME COURT’S HOLDINGS IN UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES, AND THIS COURT’S OPINION IN UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011)

The guilty findings to the words on divers occasions contained in Specification 3 of Charge II and Specification 7 of Charge III are set aside and dismissed, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for consideration of the second specified issue in light of United States v. Foster, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).

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

United States v. Conrady, 70 M.J. 372, 2011 CAAF LEXIS 881 (Ark. 2011).

70 M.J. 372 (United States v. Conrady) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Fosler
70 M.J. 225 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2011)