United States v. Howland, 10 C.M.A. 659

United States v. Howland

10 C.M.A. 659 | United States Court of Military Appeals | 1959

Dissenting Opinion

LATIMER, Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent.

After summarizing the evidence presented by both parties, the staff legal officer, in his post-trial review, advised the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, inter alia, that in his opinion the competent evidence of record established beyond a reasonable doubt accused’s guilt of the larceny for which he was convicted, and that the findings were correct in law and fact. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth *660in my dissenting opinions in United States v Bennie, 10 USCMA 159, 27 CMR 233; and United States v Clark, 10 USCMA 614, 28 CMR 180, I conclude that the post-trial advice in the case at bar meets the requirements of the Code and the Manual. I must, therefore, disagree with the disposition ordered by the majority.

I would affirm the decision of the board of review.

Lead Opinion

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the action of the supervisory authority is set aside. United States v Bennie, 10 USCMA 159, 27 CMR 233. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for reference to a competent supervisory authority for further proceedings under Articles 61, 64 and 65, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 861, 864 and 865.

Judge FERGUSON concurs.