Here’s a link to a published decision that NMCCA released today. United States v. Fosler, __ M.J. ___, No. NMCCA 201000134 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 28, 2010). Chief Judge Reismeier wrote for a unanimous panel.
Fosler involves an adultery spec in which the government failed to allege the terminal element. Here’s the issue and ruling in a nutshell:
The question presented is whether concepts of fair notice and the holdings of Medina, Miller, and Jones require a departure from 60 years of precedent established by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces regarding the requirements of pleading Article 134 offenses. We conclude that they do not.
 66 M.J. 21 (C.A.A.F. 2008)
 67 M.J. 385 (C.A.A.F. 2009)
 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010).
 Formerly called the Court of Military Appeals.
Under that well-established case law, NMCCA holds, the failure to allege the terminal element in an Article 134 spec doesn’t matter. NMCCA explains that “[c]onsistent with the holdings of Medina, Miller, and Jones, an accused is provided notice of” the conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and service discrediting “theories of liability when charged with an Article 134 violation.”