CAAF today issued this opinion affirming NMCCA’s ruling in United States v. NorwoodUnited States v. Norwood, __ M.J. __, No. 11-0515/MC (C.A.A.F. June 6, 2012).  Judge Ryan wrote for a unanimous court.

7 Responses to “CAAF affirms in Norwood”

  1. confused says:

    How is this opinion consistent with Fosler?

  2. Zachary Spilman says:

    Well, there’s this:

    In accordance with the precedent of our own Court and the Supreme Court, we hold that in order to state the elements of an inchoate offense under Articles 80 and 81, UCMJ, a specification is not required to expressly allege each element of the predicate offense.

    Slip op. at 3 (internal citations omitted). And there’s this:

    Pursuant to his pleas, a military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted Appellant of attempted adultery, conspiracy to obstruct justice … violations of Articles 80, 81 …

    Slip op. at 2.

  3. stewie says:

    This one actually makes sense. If the accused had committed all of the elements of the offense, then they would have been charged with the offense, not an attempt. Thus, why would you necessarily be required to list all of the elements of an offense for inchoate offenses, when by definition, the government is not going to be able to (or required to) prove all of the elements underlying the attempt/conspiracy?
    Distinct from Fosler or any of the other concerns that have been talked about by me and others in this area IMO.

  4. John Baker says:

    Gotta ask — with these facts, why charge attempted adultery?

  5. Christian Deichert says:

    I have to ask, why go to court on attempted adultery with ANY facts, but that may just be the old defense counsel in me.

  6. Christian Deichert says:

    After reading the facts again, I can perhaps see this coming up as part of a plea deal — government was willing to drop indecent acts and go with adultery instead, defense balked because the client wouldn’t admit penetration, so they agreed on attempted adultery instead.

    If it wasn’t part of a deal, going forward with that charge makes no sense to me from the government’s perspective.

  7. Berens says:

    Atta boy Deichert!