United States v. Hillyard
This text of 8 C.M.A. 495 (United States v. Hillyard) 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.
Opinions
Opinion of the Court
The law officer incorrectly instructed the court-martial on the issue of intent on the part of the accused in the offense of desertion, and for that reason the conviction must be reversed. The instructional errors are outlined in the opinions of this Court in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287, and United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board may reduce the offense to absence without leave and reassess the sentence, or it may order a rehearing on the desertion charge.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 C.M.A. 495, 8 USCMA 495, 24 C.M.R. 305, 1957 CMA LEXIS 324, 1957 WL 4774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hillyard-cma-1957.