United States v. Martinez
70 M.J. 360, 2011 CAAF LEXIS 829
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces·Decided September 23, 2011·No. No. 11-0638/AR·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinions
CCA 20090582. Review granted on the following issue:
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 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 granted issue in light of United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011). [See also ORDERS GRANTING PETITION FOR REVIEW this date.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Martinez, 70 M.J. 360, 2011 CAAF LEXIS 829 (Ark. 2011).
70 M.J. 360 (United States v. Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Sergeant First Class EDGAR E. MARTINEZ
Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 2012