United States v. Tinsley
201600083
| N.M.C.C.A. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Sgt. Michael R. Tinsley, a Marine Corps military police and kennel supply NCO, was charged with larceny of military working dog equipment (Specification 1) and fraudulently receiving Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) at the "with dependents" rate while unmarried (Specification 3).
- CID recovered over 30 items of working-dog gear from Tinsley’s residence, a storage locker, and his in‑laws’ backyard; members convicted him of four items (canine vest, rangefinder, leather wrap, and one kennel).
- Evidence tied a seized rangefinder to the unit inventory; witnesses disputed Tinsley’s claims of purchase or permission to possess several items.
- Pay records showed Tinsley received BAH at the with‑dependents rate from 20 Aug 2013 to 23 Dec 2013 despite being unmarried; he updated records only in May 2015 after investigation.
- Tinsley asserted legal and factual insufficiency, argued the members’ substitution of "one kennel" rendered the verdict ambiguous (double jeopardy/factual‑review problem), and challenged an error in the promulgating court‑martial order (CMO) about Specification 3’s dates.
- Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed findings and sentence, agreed CMO misstated a dismissed date range and ordered corrective action; one judge concurred in part/dissented as to the kennel conviction ambiguity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tinsley) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal and factual sufficiency of larceny convictions | Evidence insufficient to prove intent to permanently deprive and that items belonged to the U.S.; disputes about purchase/permission undermine proof | Evidence (serial number match, witness testimony, role as supply NCO, implausible explanations) supports convictions beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed: both legal and factual sufficiency satisfied |
| Ambiguity of verdict from exceptions/substitutions ("one kennel") | Finding "one kennel" without specifying which (residence vs in‑laws) makes verdict ambiguous, impedes Article 66 factual review and may implicate double jeopardy | Walters and Saxman are distinguishable; general verdict on an "on divers occasions" specification requires no pinpointing when evidence supports at least two acts | Rejected ambiguity: substitution does not render verdict ambiguous; appellate review possible and conviction stands |
| Incorrect court‑martial order (CMO) language on Specification 3 dates | CMO failed to reflect judge's dismissal of earlier date range; appellant entitled to accurate record | Government concedes error | Court orders corrective action to amend CMO to reflect narrowed dates |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (narrow rule about converting "on divers occasions" to a single occasion through exceptions/substitutions)
- United States v. Saxman, 69 M.J. 540 (N‑M. Ct. Crim. App. 2010) (limitations on appellate review where exceptions left court unable to identify which specific items formed basis of guilty finding)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 66 M.J. 201 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (general verdict on an "on divers occasions" specification stands if evidence supports at least two acts)
- United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standards for appellate legal and factual sufficiency review)
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1991) (general verdict rule: conviction stands if evidence sufficient as to any one of multiple acts charged)