Contrary to law

United States v. Contreras, ACM 37233 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 28 May 2009).

Contreras is charged with violating Article 130, UCMJ, as well as some other serious charges.  Regrettably this is one of a never ending series of sex cases stemming from alcohol.  Here is the issue on the 130.

AFCCA rejects application of United States v. Conliffe to the facts here and finds that committing indecent acts with another is not a purely military offense even though charged under Article 134, UCMJ.  This makes sense.  The militariness of the action or conduct should be the factor, not what UCMJ article was used for the charge.  Using the court’s rationale, house-breaking for the purpose of being disrespectful to a non-commissioned officer would likely not be an offense in Minnesota (although we could be creative I suppose under the MNANG version of the  UCMJ), therefore, not punishable under Article 130.

And while we’re not on the subject, why possibly spoil a perfectly good rape case — or other case — by getting creative.  Once again the desire to be creative and charge all the conduct possible causes a problem.

Posted in:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *