In this post from September I discussed the NMCCA’s decision in United States v. Tinsley, No. 201600083 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Jul. 6, 2017), in which the CCA affirmed a larceny conviction where the appellant was charged with stealing two dog kennels but the members convicted him of stealing only one kennel. The issue was that the members did not indicate which of the two kennels they found the appellant stole.
A two-judge majority of a three-judge panel of the CCA found the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction to either kennel, and so affirmed. One judge dissented, however, on the basis that the members’ findings as to the kennel(s) are ambiguous, and so would set aside the portion of the conviction involving the kennel.
Last week CAAF agreed with the dissent:
No. 17-0579/MC. U.S. v. Michael R. Tinsley. CCA 201600083. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and in light of United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2003), it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed, except for the words, “one kennel,” in Specification 1 of the Charge. The finding of guilty as to the excepted words is set aside and those excepted words are dismissed.