Argued on October 23, 2018. 

Issues: 

I. The lower court found as a matter of law that personal jurisdiction does not exist outside of the hours of inactive-duty training. The lower court proceeded to find personal jurisdiction existed over Appellant because he was “staying” with his in-laws. Was this error? 

II. Whether the lower court erred when it concluded the military judge correctly instructed the members they could convict Appellant for conduct “on or about” the dates alleged in each specification. 

Specified Issue: 

III. Whether the lower court erred in concluding the court-martial had jurisdiction over specification 2 of additional charge 1, as modified to affirm the lesser included offense of attempted larceny. 

CAAFlog case page: http://www.caaflog.com/category/october-2018-term/united-states-v-hale/

 Note:  Audio post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.