United States v. Covington

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Covington

71 M.J. 199, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 360

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DecidedMarch 27, 2012

DocketNo. 12-0336/AR

StatusPublished

This text of 71 M.J. 199 (United States v. Covington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Covington, 71 M.J. 199, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 360 (Ark. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

CCA 20090877. 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 SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2, AND 3 OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE SPECIFICATIONS FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

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

CCA 20090877. 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 SPECIFICATIONS 1, 2, AND 3 OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE SPECIFICATIONS FATALLY DEFECTIVE?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 M.J. 199, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-covington-armfor-2012.