United States v. Smith
71 M.J. 163, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 229
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces
DecidedFebruary 23, 2012
DocketNo. 11-0420/AR
StatusPublished
This text of 71 M.J. 163 (United States v. Smith) 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. Smith, 71 M.J. 163, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 229 (Ark. 2012).
Opinion
CCA 20100646. Review granted on the following issue:
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 ELEMENTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS 1 AND 2 OF CHARGE II CANNOT BE NECESSARILY IMPLIED FROM THE TEXT. ARE THE CHARGES FATALLY DEFECTIVE? [164]*164WHETHER THE SPECIFICATION FAILS TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ALLEGE OR NECESSARILY IMPLY THE TERMINAL ELEMENT OF ARTICLE 134, UCMJ.
[163]*163No briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
71 M.J. 163, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-smith-armfor-2012.