United States v. Hackler
2011 CCA LEXIS 371
N.M.C.C.A.2011Background
- Marine Corps PFC Hackler was convicted by special court-martial of desertion (Art. 85) and breaking restriction (Art. 134).
- Confinement and reductions were sentenced; pretrial agreement suspended confinement beyond 75 days.
- Appellant pled guilty to the breaking restriction specification under PTA and did not object to the sufficiency of the charge.
- Providence inquiry explained the terminal element of breaking restriction and the appellant acknowledged understanding and its prejudicial effect on good order and discipline.
- The specification alleged restriction was imposed by an authorized person and that it was broken, implying violation of the order.
- CAAF review focused on whether the terminal element is implied by the specification when the challenge to the sufficiency occurs at trial and the appellant pled guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Article 134 specification fails to state the terminal element. | Government argues Fosler controls; charge may be liberally construed when challenged at trial. | Hackler contends the terminal element must be expressly alleged; Fosler requires express or necessary implication. | Specification states the offense by necessary implication; terminal element implied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F.2011) (terminal element must be expressly alleged or implied by the language)
- United States v. Watkins, 21 M.J. 208 (C.M.A.1986) (liberal review when challenged post-trial; not required to hew to plain text)
- Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) (military obedience as foundation of discipline)