United States v. Norwood
2012 CAAF LEXIS 633
C.A.A.F.2012Background
- Appellant Benny Norwood Jr., a U.S. Marine Corps first sergeant, was tried by general court-martial on charges including attempted adultery, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and making a false official statement, with additional conspiracy and indecent acts findings disputed on appeal.
- The offenses arose from a group sexual encounter involving Norwood, SSgt K, Cpl H, and the victim on Okinawa in April 2009, and a cover-up through false statements to investigators.
- Norwood pleaded guilty to the specifications alleging attempted adultery and conspiracy to obstruct justice; the military judge provided a plea colloquy detailing the elements of the offenses and their predicate offenses.
- The NMCCA affirmed the findings and sentence; the government then sought review under Article 67, UCMJ, challenging the sufficiency of the inchoate specifications to state offenses.
- This Court held that pleading requirements for inchoate offenses under Articles 80 and 81 do not require explicit pleading of every element of the predicate offense, applying precedent from Wong Tai and Resendiz-Ponce, while recognizing the need for sufficient specificity regarding the underlying target offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must inchoate specifications allege all elements of the predicate offense? | Norwood argues the target offense elements must be stated in full. | Government contends only the inchoate elements need be pled, supported by governing precedent. | Specifications sufficient; no requirement to plead predicate elements in full. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77 (1927) (conspiracy pleading: object need not be detailed)
- Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425 (1908) (conspiracy as the gist of the crime; object stated with certainty suffices)
- Thornton v. United States, 271 U.S. 414 (1926) (less detail required for conspiracy indictments)
- United States v. Bryant, 30 M.J. 72 (C.A.A.F. 1990) (inchoate offenses need not describe predicate with technical precision)
- United States v. Irwin, 22 C.M.A. 168 (1973) (pleading standards for conspiracy/attempt align with inchoate approach)
- United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) (indictment for attempted unlawful act need not allege overt acts or all components)
- United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (MCM structure allows broad interpretation of Article 134 contexts)
- Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 871 (1974) (pleading sufficiency and evidentiary respect for offenses)