In addition to Halpin, CAAF has also released two other opinions.
In Clifton, BAKER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which RYAN, J., and EFFRON, S.J., joined. ERDMANN, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in part and in the result. STUCKY, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in the result.
On Appellant’s petition, we granted review of the following issue:
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED ERROR BY DENYING A PANEL MEMBER’S REQUEST TO CALL ADDITIONAL WITNESSES FOR QUESTIONING, BUT FOUND THE ERROR TO BE HARMLESS.For the reasons set forth below, and assuming forfeiture rather than waiver, we conclude that the military judge erred, but that the error was not prejudicial.
In Capel, BAKER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ERDMANN and RYAN, JJ., and COX, S.J., joined. STUCKY, J., filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. This audio is here. Read this case in conjunction with United States v. Spicer.
We also specified the following issue:
II. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT’S CONVICTION FOR MAKING A FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENT, ARTICLE 107, UCMJ, UNDER THIS COURT’S DECISION IN UNITED STATES v. TEFFEAU, 58 M.J. 62 (C.A.A.F. 2002), AND UNITED STATES v. DAY, 66 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2008).
Our discussion of this case focuses on the specified issue. We conclude that the statements at issue here are not official for the purposes of Article 107, UCMJ.
|U.S. v. Clifton||12-0486/AR (PDF)||Feb 14, 2013||xx MJ xxx|
|U.S. v. Capel||12-0320/AF (PDF)||Feb 14, 2013||xx MJ xxx|