United States v. Wilson
2017 CAAF LEXIS 12
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 6, 2013 at Fort Benning, Appellant Wilson and an accomplice climbed a locked fence and entered the 3rd BSTB motor pool to steal vehicle batteries located on a pallet outside covered bays.
- The motor pool was a concrete lot surrounded by a fence; it contained enclosed bays (with walls and roofs) but the stolen batteries were outdoors on the pad.
- Wilson pled guilty to possessing controlled substances and larceny; he was convicted (contrary to plea) of housebreaking under Article 130, UCMJ, for entering the fenced motor pool.
- At trial the defense moved under R.C.M. 917 for a finding of not guilty of housebreaking, arguing a fenced motor pool is not a “structure” for Article 130; the military judge denied the motion.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; this court granted review and considered whether a fenced motor pool qualifies as a "structure" under Article 130.
- The Court held the fenced motor pool is not a "structure" or "dwelling" for Article 130 and reversed the housebreaking conviction, dismissing Charge I and its Specification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a fenced motor pool is a “structure” under Article 130 (housebreaking) | Government: fence-enclosed area served motor pool functions and qualifies as a structure for housebreaking | Wilson: open-air fenced lot is not a building/structure in nature of a dwelling; fence alone cannot convert outdoor area into a structure | Court: Not a structure; Article 130 covers enclosed, building-like structures or constructions used for habitation/storage; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Oliver, 70 M.J. 64 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (legal-sufficiency review and Jackson standard in military context)
- United States v. Murphy, 74 M.J. 302 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (statutory construction and deference to Presidential constructions when not contradictory)
- United States v. Davis, 47 M.J. 484 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (limits on deference to President's Manual interpretations of substantive elements)
- United States v. Atchak, 75 M.J. 193 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (de novo review of statutory construction)
- United States v. Wickersham, 14 M.J. 404 (C.M.A. 1982) (distinguished; addressed unlawful entry under Article 134 rather than Article 130)
- United States v. Taylor, 30 C.M.R. 44 (C.M.A. 1961) (definitional guidance on structure)
- United States v. Hall, 12 C.M.A. 374 (C.M.A. 1961) (structure/dwelling analysis depending on function/use at time of entry)