United States v. Thompson
This text of 19 C.M.A. 484 (United States v. Thompson) 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.
Opinions
Opinion of the Court
Thompson has been convicted of two unauthorized absences beginning before
August 1, 1969, the effective date of paragraph 75d, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition). Evidence of Article 15 disciplinary action for a six and one-half day unauthorized absence was inadmissible as to aggravate the sentence. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970). The presence of substantial other evidence in aggravation makes the effect of the above unauthorized absence minuscule. Reassessment of the sentence is not required.
This ease also raises a question regarding the military judge’s certification of seven prosecution exhibits. The issue, as worded, assumes that the certifications occurred before trial. This assumption appears to be without factual basis. Not only did the military judge attest to the correctness of seven prosecution exhibits but he made similar attestations as to at least ten defense exhibits. We therefore believe it obvious that his certifications on all of these exhibits — both prosecution and defense — occurred after trial, not before. There is no error. United States v Johnson, supra.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 C.M.A. 484, 19 USCMA 484, 42 C.M.R. 86, 1970 CMA LEXIS 841, 1970 WL 6994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thompson-cma-1970.