United States v. Hall

12 C.M.A. 374, 12 USCMA 374, 30 C.M.R. 374, 1961 CMA LEXIS 248, 1961 WL 4454
CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals
DecidedApril 28, 1961
DocketNo. 14,680
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 12 C.M.A. 374 (United States v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Military Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Hall, 12 C.M.A. 374, 12 USCMA 374, 30 C.M.R. 374, 1961 CMA LEXIS 248, 1961 WL 4454 (cma 1961).

Opinions

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

A general court-martial convicted the accused of larceny and housebreaking, in violation of Articles 121 and 130, Uniform Code of Military Justice, respectively, 10 USC §§ 921, 930. The specification of the latter offense alleges that the accused unlawfully entered “a railroad box car” of the British Railways with intent to commit larceny therein. On this appeal, the accused contends the specification does not allege an offense in violation of Article 130 because a railroad boxcar is not [375]*375a “structure” as that word is used in the article.

In United States v Taylor, 12 USCMA 44, 30 CMR 44, the Court held that a large cargo-carrying aircraft was not a structure within the meaning of Article 130. In its opinion, the Court contrasted the aircraft with a railway car, and pointed out that Congress did not intend the two to be “members of the same class.” Implicit in the discussion is the conclusion that a railroad freight car is, as the Manual for Courts-Martial indicates, a “structure” within Article 130. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 209, page 375. The specification is, therefore, legally sufficient. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge Latimer concurs.

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

Related

United States v. Wilson
76 M.J. 4 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2017)
United States v. Cahill
23 M.J. 544 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1986)
United States v. Wickersham
14 M.J. 404 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Wickersham
10 M.J. 615 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1980)
United States v. Cansdale
1 M.J. 894 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1976)
United States v. Breen
15 C.M.A. 658 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 C.M.A. 374, 12 USCMA 374, 30 C.M.R. 374, 1961 CMA LEXIS 248, 1961 WL 4454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hall-cma-1961.