18.08.2013 Views

2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army

2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army

2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

United States, 587 F.2d 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 961<br />

(1979); Military Judges’ Benchbook, supra, paragraph 3–190.<br />

Subparagraphs (4) and (5) are based on 18 U.S.C. § 1201; 2 E.<br />

Devitt and C. Blackmar, supra § § 43.05, 43.06, 43.10. See also<br />

U n i t e d S t a t e s v . H o o g , s u p r a . T h e s e c o n d s e n t e n c e i n s u b -<br />

paragraph (4) is also based on United States v. Healy, supra. See<br />

also United States v. Smith, supra. The second sentence in subparagraph<br />

(5) is based on United States v. Picotte, supra. See also<br />

United States v. Martin, 4 M.J. 852 (A.C.M.R. 1978). The last<br />

sentence in subsection (5) is based on 18 U.S.C. § 1201. A parent<br />

taking a child in violation of a custody decree may violate state<br />

law or 18 U.S.C. § 1073. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1073 Historical and<br />

Revision Note (West Supp. 1982). See also paragraph 60 c(4).<br />

e. Maximum punishment. The maximum punishment is based on<br />

18 U.S.C. § 1201. See also United States v. Jackson, supra.<br />

93. Article 134— (Mail: taking, opening, secreting,<br />

destroying, or stealing)<br />

c. Explanation. This paragraph is new and is based on United<br />

States v. Gaudet, 11 U.S.C.M.A. 672, 29 C.M.R. 488 (1960);<br />

United States v. Manausa, 12 U.S.C.M.A. 37, 30 C.M.R. 37<br />

(1960). This offense is not preempted by Article 121. See United<br />

States v. Gaudet, supra. See also paragraph 60.<br />

94. Article 134— (Mails: depositing or causing to<br />

be deposited obscene matters in)<br />

c. Explanation. This paragraph is new and is based on United<br />

States v. Holt, 12 U.S.C.M.A. 471, 31 C.M.R. 57 (1961); United<br />

States v. Linyear, 3 M.J. 1027 (N.C.M.R. 1977). See also Hamling<br />

v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974); Miller v. California, 413<br />

U.S. 15 (1973).<br />

f. <strong>Sam</strong>ple specifications. “Lewd” and “lascivious” were eliminated<br />

because they are synonymous with “obscene.” See Analysis,<br />

paragraph 90 c.<br />

95. Article 134— (Misprision of serious offense)<br />

c. Explanation. This paragraph is based on paragraph 213 f(6) of<br />

MCM, 1969 (Rev.). The term “serious offense” is substituted for<br />

“felony” to make clear that concealment of serious military offenses,<br />

as well a serious civilian offenses, is an offense. Subsection<br />

(1) is based on Black’s Law Dictionary 902 (5th ed. 1979).<br />

See also United States v. Daddano, 432 F.2d 1119 (7th Cir.<br />

1970); United States v. Perlstein, 126 F.2d 789 (3d Cir.), cert.<br />

denied, 316 U.S. 678 (1942); 18 U.S.C. § 4.<br />

96. Article 134— (Obstructing justice)<br />

c. Explanation. This paragraph is new and is based on United<br />

States v. Favors, 48 C.M.R. 873 (A.C.M.R. 1974). see also 18<br />

U.S.C. § § 1503, 1505, 1510, 1512, 1513; United States v. Chodkowski,<br />

11 M.J. 605 (A.F.C.M.A. 1981).<br />

f. <strong>Sam</strong>ple specification.<br />

1991 Amendment: The form specification was amended by<br />

deleting the parentheses encompassing “wrongfully” as this language<br />

is not optional, but is a required component of a legally<br />

sufficient specification.<br />

ANALYSIS OF PUNITIVE ARTICLES<br />

96a. Article 134— (Wrongful interference with an<br />

adverse administrative proceeding)<br />

1993 Amendment. Paragraph 96 a is new and proscribes<br />

conduct that obstructs administrative proceedings. See generally<br />

18 U.S.C. 1505, Obstruction of proceedings before departments,<br />

agencies, and committees. This paragraph, patterned after paragraph<br />

96, covers obstruction of certain administrative proceedings<br />

not currently covered by the definition of criminal proceeding<br />

found in paragraph 96 c. This paragraph is necessary given the<br />

i n c r e a s e d n u m b e r o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n s i n i t i a t e d i n e a c h<br />

service.<br />

97. Article 134— (Pandering and prostitution)<br />

c. Explanation. This paragraph is new and is based on United<br />

S t a t e s v . A d a m s , 1 8 U . S . C . M . A . 3 1 0 , 4 0 C . M . R . 2 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ;<br />

United State v. Bohannon, 20 C.M.R. 870 (A.F.B.R. 1955).<br />

e. Maximum punishment. The maximum punishment for prostitution<br />

is based on 18 U.S.C. § 1384.<br />

2007 Amendment: This paragraph has been amended. The act<br />

of compelling another person to engage in an act of prostitution<br />

with another person will no longer be punished under paragraph<br />

97 and has been replaced by a new offense under paragraph 45.<br />

See Article 120 (l) Forcible Pandering.<br />

97a. Article 134— (Parole, Violation of)<br />

Pun. Art. 134<br />

1998 Amendment. The addition of paragraph 97a to Part IV,<br />

Punitive Articles, makes clear that violation of parole is an offense<br />

under Article 134, UCMJ. Both the 1951 and 1969 Manuals<br />

for Courts-Martial listed the offense in their respective Table of<br />

Maximum Punishments. No explanatory guidance, however, was<br />

contained in the discussion of Article 134, UCMJ in the Manual<br />

for Courts-Martial. The drafters added paragraph 97a to ensure<br />

that an explanation of the offense, to include its elements and a<br />

sample specification, is contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial,<br />

Part IV, Punitive Articles. See generally United States v.<br />

Faist, 41 C.M.R. 720 (ACMR 1970); United States v. Ford, 43<br />

C.M.R. 551 (ACMR 1970).<br />

98. Article 134— (Perjury: subornation of)<br />

c. Explanation. This paragraph is new. It is based on 18 U.S.C.<br />

§ 1622 which applies to any perjury. See 18 U.S.C. § 1621. See<br />

generally R. Perkins, Criminal Law 466–67 (2d ed. 1969). See<br />

also the Analysis, paragraph 57; United States v. Doughty, 14<br />

U . S . C . M . A . 5 4 0 , 3 4 C . M . R . 3 2 0 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ( r e s j u d i c a t a ) ; U n i t e d<br />

States v. Smith, 49 C.M.R. 325 (N.C.M.R. 1974) (pleading).<br />

99. Article 134— (Public record: altering,<br />

concealing, removing mutilating, obliterating, or<br />

destroying)<br />

c. Explanation. This paragraph is new and is based on Mil.-<br />

R.Evid. 803(8), but does not exclude certain types of records<br />

which are inadmissible under Mil. R. Evid. 803(8) for policy<br />

r e a s o n s . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M a z e , 2 1 U . S . C . M . A . 2 6 0 , 4 5<br />

C.M.R. 34 (1972) for a discussion of one of these offenses in<br />

relation to the doctrine of preemption. See generally 18 U.S.C.<br />

§ 2071.<br />

f. <strong>Sam</strong>ple specification. The specification contained in Appendix<br />

A23-23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!