United States v. Escochea-Sanchez

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Escochea-Sanchez

70 M.J. 347

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DecidedSeptember 13, 2011

DocketNo. 11-0559/NA

StatusPublished

This text of 70 M.J. 347 (United States v. Escochea-Sanchez) 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. Escochea-Sanchez, 70 M.J. 347 (Ark. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

CCA 201000093. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER ARTICLE 120(c) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED WHERE: THE MILITARY JUDGE (1) REQUIRED APPELLANT TO PROVE THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF CONSENT AND MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; (2) DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENSES HAD BEEN PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; AND THEN (3) FAILED TO DISMISS THE CHARGES SUA SPONTE AS REQUIRED BY RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 917.

No briefs will be filed.

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

CCA 201000093. Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER ARTICLE 120(c) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED WHERE: THE MILITARY JUDGE (1) REQUIRED APPELLANT TO PROVE THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF CONSENT AND MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; (2) DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENSES HAD BEEN PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; AND THEN (3) FAILED TO DISMISS THE CHARGES SUA SPONTE AS REQUIRED BY RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 917.

No briefs will be filed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 M.J. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-escochea-sanchez-armfor-2011.