United States v. Morris
71 M.J. 184, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 259
This text of 71 M.J. 184 (United States v. Morris) 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. Morris, 71 M.J. 184, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 259 (Ark. 2012).
Opinion
CCA 20081169. Review granted on the following issue raised by appellate defense counsel:
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILS TO ALLEGE AN ARTICLE 134 TERMINAL ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE UNLESS THE TERMINAL ELEMENT CAN BE “NECESSARILY IMPLIED” FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFICATION. THE MISSING TERMINAL ELEMENT FROM THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE IV CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. IS THE CHARGE FATALLY DEFECTIVE?
And the following issue specified by the Court:
WHETHER APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT AS A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF INDECENT ASSAULT UNDER ARTICLE 134 MAY BE AFFIRMED WHERE THE ARTICLE 134 SPECIFICATION WAS DEFECTIVE UNDER UNITED STATES v. FOSLER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
United States v. Fosler
70 M.J. 225 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2011)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
71 M.J. 184, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-morris-armfor-2012.