Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share NMCCA: United States v. Ayalacruz, No. 201800193
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
NMCCA: United States v. Ayalacruz, No. 201800193
Argued on September 27, 2019.
Case Summary: A special court-martial consisting of officer members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 892), one specification of simple assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 928), and one specification of disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 934). The members sentenced Appellant to a reprimand, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
Issues:
I. Did the military judge violate Appellant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy when he instructed the court members to revise the announcement of their findings?
[II]A. Did the court members acquit Appellant of both elements of simple assault in the second announcement of their findings through improper exception and substitution?
[II]B. Did the language substituted by the court members in the second announcement of their findings fail to state an offense?
Note: Audio remixed from stereo to mono and post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.
View all episodes
By CAAFlogArgued on September 27, 2019.
Case Summary: A special court-martial consisting of officer members convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 892), one specification of simple assault, in violation of Article 128, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 928), and one specification of disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 934). The members sentenced Appellant to a reprimand, reduction to paygrade E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.
Issues:
I. Did the military judge violate Appellant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy when he instructed the court members to revise the announcement of their findings?
[II]A. Did the court members acquit Appellant of both elements of simple assault in the second announcement of their findings through improper exception and substitution?
[II]B. Did the language substituted by the court members in the second announcement of their findings fail to state an offense?
Note: Audio remixed from stereo to mono and post-processed for this podcast with a dynamic normalizer filter.