United States v. McQueen

7 M.J. 281, 1979 CMA LEXIS 9627
CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals
DecidedAugust 27, 1979
DocketNo. 36,187; SPCM 13134
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 7 M.J. 281 (United States v. McQueen) 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. McQueen, 7 M.J. 281, 1979 CMA LEXIS 9627 (cma 1979).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review of the following contention:

THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE AS TO CAPTAIN KASPER, COURT MEMBER.

Resolution is readily performed by using the rule laid down in United States v. Deain, 5 U.S.C.M.A. 44, 49, 17 C.M.R. 44, 49 (1954):

If the evidence touching the issue is in conflict, the balance must be struck by the person or persons having authority to rule on the challenge. There must be a clear abuse of discretion in resolving the conflict before an appellate tribunal, which lacks the power to reweigh the facts, will reverse a decision.

(Emphasis added.)

The proper test to evaluate the propriety of the judge’s denial of a challenge for cause “is whether he [the prospective court member] is mentally free to render an impartial finding and sentence based on the law and the evidence.” United States v. Parker, 6 U.S.C.M.A. 274, 284-85, 19 C.M.R. 400, 410-11 (1955).

We have found no fault with, and have continued to adhere to, these two rules. United States v. Karnes, 1 M.J. 92 (C.M.A.1975); United States v. Boyd, No. 36,296, 7 M.J. 282 (C.M.A.1979). Viewing the voir dire examination of Captain Kasper in light of Deain and Parker, we conclude that the trial judge correctly disallowed the challenge for cause.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review.

Judge PERRY concurs in the result.

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

Related

United States v. Dale
39 M.J. 503 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1993)
United States v. McDavid
37 M.J. 861 (U S Air Force Court of Military Review, 1993)
United States v. Jobson
31 M.J. 117 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1990)
United States v. Armstrong
30 M.J. 769 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1990)
United States v. Yardley
24 M.J. 719 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1987)
United States v. McPhaul
22 M.J. 808 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1986)
United States v. Lauzon
21 M.J. 761 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1986)
United States v. Cunningham
21 M.J. 555 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1985)
United States v. Reece
21 M.J. 706 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1985)
United States v. Kyles
20 M.J. 571 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1985)
United States v. Mason
16 M.J. 455 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Downing
17 M.J. 636 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1983)
United States v. Aldridge
16 M.J. 1008 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Heriot
16 M.J. 825 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Aikens
16 M.J. 821 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1983)
United States v. Rojas
15 M.J. 902 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1983)
United States v. Curry
15 M.J. 701 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1983)
United States v. McKinley
15 M.J. 731 (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review, 1982)
United States v. Harris
13 M.J. 288 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1982)
United States v. Matthews
13 M.J. 501 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 M.J. 281, 1979 CMA LEXIS 9627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mcqueen-cma-1979.