By my count, the four Courts of Criminal Appeals have issued a combined total of 17 published opinions this calendar year.  (Over the same period, CAAF has issued 29 opinions of the Court.)

Here’s the breakdown for published CCA opinions:

NMCCA:  9

ACCA:  7

AFCCA:  1

CGCCA:  0

Here’s a compilation:

NMCCA

1. United States v. Tearman, 70 M.J. 640 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.), petition granted, 71 M.J. 197 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (holding that erroneous admission of sample custody document’s certification was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that chain-of-custody documents and internal review worksheets were non-testimonial).

2. United States v.  Walker, 71 M.J. 523 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 71 M.J. 363 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (holding appellate court violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by ordering a rehearing on an offense, but considering all elements but one proven, with the rehearing limited to that one element).

3. United States v.  Simmons, 70 M.J. 649 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.) (en banc), petition denied, 71 M.J. 335 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (affirming conviction for violating DOD uniform regulation; setting aside Article 134 and violation of JER specs as UMC).

4. United States v.  Useche, 70 M.J. 657 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2012), petition denied, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0469/MC (C.A.A.F. Aug. 8, 2012) (holding that “appellant’s actions in providing alcohol to a mentally retarded adult and engaging in oral sodomy while she was handcuffed” placed conduct “well-outside the Lawrence liberty interest”).

5. United States v.  Lonsford, 71 M.J. 501 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.) (en banc), rev’d, 71 M.J. 358 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (holding adultery spec necessarily included terminal element).

6. United States v.  Warren, 71 M.J. 505 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App.), petition denied, 71 M.J. 326 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (holding CA’s action was ambiguous as to approval or disapproval of the DD, thereby allowing case to be remanded for clarifying action).

7.  United States v.  Hunt, 71 M.J. 538 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2012) (en banc) (holding that communicating a threat spec without Article 134’s terminal element didn’t state an offense, but affirming due to lack of prejudice in contested case).

8.  United States v. Key, 71 M.J. 566 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2012), petition filed, __ M.J. __, No. 13-0018/NA (C.A.A.F. Sept. 12, 2012) (holding military judge erred in excluding specific words spoken by victim while she was engaged in intercourse with co-actor moments before alleged sexual assault by accused on ground that the evidence concerned “other sexual behavior,” but holding error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt).

9. United States v. Parker, __ M.J. __, No. NMCCA 9501500  (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 22, 2012) (setting aside premeditated murder conviction due to failure to sever from trial on another premeditated murder spec, failure to give a spillover instruction, and factual insufficiency; affirms confinement for life in lieu of death sentence).

ACCA

1.  Gray v. Belcher, 70 M.J. 646 (A. Ct. Crim. App.), writ-appeal denied, 71 M.J. 300 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (denying coram nobis relief to military death row inmate due to possibility of habeas relief in U.S. District Court).

2.  United States v. Bowersox, 71 M.J. 561 (A. Ct. Crim. App.), petition granted, 71 M.J. 362 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (rejecting constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 1466A).

3.  United States v. Jones-Marshall, 71 M.J. 534 (A. Ct. Crim. App.), petition denied, 71 M.J. 345 (C.A.A.F. 2012). (holding that falsified lease agreements and rental receipts involving private parties did not, as a matter of law, constitute “forgery” within the meaning of the forgery article where they imposed no legal liability on the United States, notwithstanding that they might have constituted preliminary steps toward perfecting a false claim against the United States for reimbursement for rent paid by a mobilized reservist).

4.  United States v. Gean, 71 M.J. 553 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2012), petition denied, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0548/AR (C.A.A.F. Aug. 1, 2012) (holding when a soldier is directed to undergo psychiatric evaluation and is required to respond to questions about threats, his threatening statement in answer to that question isn’t wrongful as a matter of law).

5.  United States v. Shaw, 71 M.J. 557(A. Ct. Crim. App. 2012), petition filed, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0636/AR (C.A.A.F. July 23, 2012) (holding that defense didn’t properly preserve Mil. R. Evid. 412 issue presented on appeal).

6.  Casa-Garcia v. United States, __ M.J. ___, No. ARMY MISC 20111047 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 28, 2012) (holding that Padilla v. Kentucky doesn’t apply retroactively).

7.  United States v. Schell, __ M.J. ___, No. ARMY 20110264 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 12, 2012) (holding that intent element of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) requires that the accused intended to persuade, induce, or entice a minor to actually engage in illegal sexual activity).

AFCCA

1.  United States v. Vazquez, 71 M.J. 543 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.), certificate for review filed,  71 M.J. 328 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (finding military due process violation and erroneous failure to sua sponte declare mistrial where two new members came onto the panel after a key witness’s testimony and the testimony was read to the new members).

Comments are closed.