FEDERAL · 10 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER IX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
Art. 59. Error of law; lesser included offense
10 U.S.C. § 859
Title10 — Armed Forces
ChapterSUBCHAPTER IX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
This text of 10 U.S.C. § 859 (Art. 59. Error of law; lesser included offense) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
10 U.S.C. § 859.
Text
(a)A finding or sentence of a court-martial may not be held incorrect on the ground of an error of law unless the error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.
(b)Any reviewing authority with the power to approve or affirm a finding of guilty may approve or affirm, instead, so much of the finding as includes a lesser included offense.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
United States v. Walters
58 M.J. 391 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2003)
United States v. Behenna
71 M.J. 228 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2012)
United States v. Griggs
61 M.J. 402 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2005)
United States v. Jameson
65 M.J. 160 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2007)
United States v. Sapp
53 M.J. 90 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2000)
United States v. Davis
48 M.J. 494 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 1998)
United States v. Holt
58 M.J. 227 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2003)
United States v. Baker
57 M.J. 330 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2002)
United States v. Nix
40 M.J. 6 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1994)
United States v. Seider
60 M.J. 36 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2004)
United States v. Lowe
58 M.J. 261 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2003)
United States v. Johnson-Saunders
48 M.J. 74 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 1998)
United States v. Baumann
54 M.J. 100 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2000)
United States v. Hall
23 C.M.A. 549 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1975)
United States v. Bolkan
55 M.J. 425 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2001)
United States v. Pomarleau
57 M.J. 351 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2002)
United States v. Gilbride
56 M.J. 428 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2002)
United States v. Tardif
58 M.J. 714 (U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, 2003)
United States v. Fulton
55 M.J. 88 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2001)
United States v. Kahmann
59 M.J. 309 (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 2004)
Source Credit
History
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 57.)
Editorial Notes
The word "may" is substituted for the word "shall".
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
10 U.S.C. § 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/10/859.