United States v. Thomas

14 C.M.A. 223, 14 USCMA 223, 34 C.M.R. 3, 1963 CMA LEXIS 195, 1963 WL 4746
CourtUnited States Court of Military Appeals
DecidedOctober 18, 1963
DocketNo. 17,067
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 14 C.M.A. 223 (United States v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 14 C.M.A. 223, 14 USCMA 223, 34 C.M.R. 3, 1963 CMA LEXIS 195, 1963 WL 4746 (cma 1963).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Among other offenses presented to a special court-martial, the accused pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of wrongful appropriation- of a parka and a pair of boots from a fellow airman, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. In the course of the sentence procedure, it was indicated that the accused had been restricted. He broke restriction and was arrested by the Air Police who brought him to the Air Police office. However, he broke the arrest to return to his room. He then wanted to go out to eat. Since his keys were in possession of the Air Police, he went to the room of “his friend” and “borrowed” the parka and boots “just for the express purpose of going to eat.” He left a signed note reading: “Say Wheeler, I am borrowing your parka, boots and cap. Will bring it back later. Thanks.” While in the dining hall, the accused was again apprehended.

These circumstances tend strongly to negate the criminal intent required for a violation of Article 121. United States v Hayes, 8 USCMA 627, 25 CMR 131. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the president of the special court-martial “to inquire into the providence of the plea of guilty . . . and, if accused did not disavow” this account of the transaction to set it aside. United States v Caid, 13 USCMA 348, 351, 32 CMR 348.

The decision of the board of review is reversed as to Charge III and its specification and the sentence. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air [224]*224Force for submission to the board of review. In its discretion the board of review may dismiss Charge III and its specification and reassess the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty or order a rehearing on that charge and the sentence.

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

Related

United States v. Stouffer
2 M.J. 528 (U.S. Army Court of Military Review, 1976)
United States v. Thompson
21 C.M.A. 526 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1972)
United States v. Lewis
18 C.M.A. 287 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1969)
United States v. Pinkston
18 C.M.A. 261 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1969)
United States v. Vance
17 C.M.A. 444 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1968)
United States v. Holladay
16 C.M.A. 373 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1966)
United States v. Brown
15 C.M.A. 67 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1964)
United States v. Morgan
14 C.M.A. 364 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1964)
United States v. Gossett
14 C.M.A. 305 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 C.M.A. 223, 14 USCMA 223, 34 C.M.R. 3, 1963 CMA LEXIS 195, 1963 WL 4746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thomas-cma-1963.