Site Overlay


Natasha smith. December 9th, on am. Does this apply to human as well. being that soldiers are the property of the government. What if while they. Article Damage, Wrongful Disposition, Sale, Loss or Destruction of U.S. Military Article deals with incidents where military property comes to harm or it is Note: When the property in question is a firearm or explosive, the UCMJ . 10 U.S. Code § – Art. Military property of United States—Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition. US Code · Notes · Authorities (CFR).

Author: Daimuro Volkree
Country: Latvia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 12 August 2008
Pages: 492
PDF File Size: 3.79 Mb
ePub File Size: 20.88 Mb
ISBN: 493-1-85219-542-7
Downloads: 41173
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kazijind

Property Need Not Have Been Personally Issued The purpose of Article is to ensure that all military property, however obtained and wherever located, is protected from loss, damage, or destruction.

As such, all persons subject to the UCMJ have an affirmative duty to preserve the integrity of military property. The specification must as a whole or directly state artic,e the property was military property of the United States.

RockeyC. Schiavo14 M. Larceny and wrongful disposition of the same property are separatelypunishable. West17 M.

Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition of military property. UCMJ Art. 108

Harder17 M. But see United States v. Teters37 M. Disposing of military property by any meansother than sale is an offense under Article if such disposition is made without proper authority. For example, giving military property away without proper articke constitutes an offense under this article. It makes no difference if the surrender of the property is temporary or permanent.

Banks15 M. Reap43 M. All info submitted will be kept confidential and private. We will contact you via e-mail or phone for a free initial consultation with a military defense lawyer. An attorney client relationship is not established by submitting this initial contact information to our office. Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition of military property.

It is immaterial whether the property sold, disposed, destroyed, lost, or damaged had been issued to the accused, to aeticle else, or even issued at all. If it is proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence that items of individual issue were issued to the accusedit may be inferred, depending on all the evidencethat the damage, destruction, or loss proved was due to the neglect of the accused.

Retail merchandise of service exchange stores is not umj property under this article. Hemingway36 M. Myriad items can constitute military property, including: Watches, United States v. Ford30 C.

Can troops be punished for damaging government property if they get a sunburn?

Reid31 C. Foust20 C. Meirthew11 C. Burrell12 C. Tomasulo12 C. Simonds20 M. Blevins34 C. Military property artivle not include: Spradlin33 M. Nonappropriated artocle organization property, which is not furnished to a military service for use by the military service. Geisler37 M. Ford30 M. Thompson30 M. Underwood41 C. Schelin12 M. Navy courts have held, however, that property of the Navy Exchange is military property. Mullins34 C.

Harvey6 M. Pleading The specification must as articoe whole or directly state that the property was military property of the United States. Multiplicity Larceny and wrongful disposition of the same property are separatelypunishable. The sale of property implies the transfer of at least ostensible title to a purchaser in return for consideration.


When the evidence merely shows that the accused, according to prior arrangements, stole property and delivered it to one or more of his fellow principals in the theft, receiving payment for his services, no sale is made. Walter36 C. Under proper circumstances, one transaction can constitute both a larceny and wrongful sale of the same property. Lucas33 C.

The larceny was complete when the automotive parts were taken from the salvage yard; and the act of selling such parts did not constitute the final element of the larceny offense. Lack of knowledge as defense. Germak31 C.

Pearson15 M. An accused can artlcle separately found guilty of wrongful sale under Article and concealment under Article of the same military property. Wolfe19 M. Wrongful Disposition of Military Property Disposing of military property by any meansother than sale is agticle offense under Article ufmj such disposition is made without proper authority. Damaging, Destroying, or Losing Military Property Loss, damage, or destruction of military property under this provision may be theresult of intentional misconduct or neglect.

Removing the screws that secure the nose landing gear inspection windowof a military aircraft was legally sufficient to support the damage element required under Article The government was not required to prove that the accused arhicle a motive to wrongfully damage military property in order to secure a conviction for the offense.

Daniels56 M. Willful damage, destruction, or loss is one that is intentionallyoccasioned. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences thereof. Boswell32 M. Willful damage is a ucmh included offense of sabotageunder 18 U. Johnson15 M. Washington29 M. George35 C. Evidence that the accused removed perishable medical serums from a refrigerator in a medical warehouse in the tropics and left them at room temperature was sufficient to establish a willful destruction of government property although the purpose in removing the serums was to steal the refrigerator.

The evidence established that the removal was intentional, and showing that the accused had a fully conscious awareness of the probable ultimate consequences of his purposeful act was unnecessary. Creek39 C. The evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of willfully and wrongfully destroying artixle M26 fragmentation hand grenade, military property of the United Articlle, where evidence existed that some sort of explosive device was detonated and some witnesses expressed the opinion it was a grenade because of the sound and damage done, when they all admitted it could have been anything else and another witness said it sounded like recoilless rifle fire while others declined to express an opinion.

Uniform Code of Military Justice

Barnhardt45 C. Hendley17 C. The accused, who had been drinking, took a military police sedan without authority and was chased at high speed.

In trying to evade his pursuers, he weaved in and out of traffic; narrowly missed one oncoming vehicle; subsequently sideswiped another; and finally went out of control, left the road, and smashed into several trees. The Board of Review only approved negligent damage to military aeticle. Peacock24 M. Loss, destruction, or damage is occasioned through neglect when it isthe result of a want of such attention of the foreseeable consequences of an act or omission as was appropriate under the circumstances.



UCMJ Article | UCMJ Military Criminal Defense Lawyer

Ryan14 C. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable to a prosecution for damaging a military vehicle through neglect, and the mere happening of a collision with resulting damage is not in itself sufficient to support a conviction for violation of Article Negligence must be affirmatively established by the prosecution evidence. Here, the accused umj found guilty of damaging a government vehicle through neglect. No evidence indicated that the accused was driving at an excessive speed or in any sort of reckless manner, or that he was under the influence of alcohol, or that at the time of the accident he was engaged in the violation of traffic or other safety regulations of any nature.

The evidence was wholly insufficient to support findings of guilt. Foster48 C. Stuck31 C. This is because the accused testified he had driven over a rock, evidence indicated that the road approaching the gate was bumpy and full of holes, and the gate was held open by a rock which could have been moved onto the road. Lane34 C. The evidence was legally and factually sufficient to sustain findings of guilty of damaging and suffering damage to a Coast Guard vessel through neglect where the accused voluntarily and intentionally turned two wheels controlling flood valves on a floating drydock in which the vessel was artic,e, thereby consciously setting articpe motion a sequence of events which a reasonably prudent man would expect to end in some kind of harm; and if, as the court found, the precise form and shape of the injury to the vessel was not specifically intended, then it was the result of a lack of due solicitude on the part of the accused made punishable under Article Traweek35 C.

Miller12 M. Article offense made out where accused who had control of a military truck permitted an unlicensed year-old military dependent to operate truck resulting in accident and damage to vehicle. Johnpier30 M. Where a member of the naval service intentionally loses military property bywillfully pushing it over the side of his ship, he may be charged under Article of willfully suffering the loss or wrongfully disposing of military property. Value Under all theories uc,j prosecution under ArticleUCMJ, the government mustestablish as an element of proof the value of the property destroyed, lost, or sold, or the amount of damage to that property.

In the case of damage, the amount of damage controls. As a general rule, the amount of damage is the estimated or actual artlcle of repair by the government agency normally employed in such work, or the cost of replacement, as shown by government price lists or otherwise, whichever is less.