United States v. Rodriguez
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Baskin (United States Court of Military Appeals 1967)
- United States v. Infante (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1977)
- United States v. Johnson (United States Court of Military Appeals 1975)
- United States v. Hill (United States Court of Military Appeals 1972)
- United States v. Worley (United States Court of Military Appeals 1970)
- United States v. Mallard (United States Court of Military Appeals 1970)
- United States v. Ogden (United States Court of Military Appeals 1970)
- United States v. Morehead (United States Court of Military Appeals 1968)
- United States v. Dixon (United States Court of Military Appeals 1968)
- United States v. Guzman-Marquez (United States Court of Military Appeals 1968)
- United States v. Evans (United States Court of Military Appeals 1968)
- United States v. Vogel (United States Court of Military Appeals 1967)
- United States v. Cole (United States Court of Military Appeals 1967)
- United States v. Averette (United States Court of Military Appeals 1967)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court
Appellant pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, wrongful possession, sale, and use of marihuana, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934. As approved, his sentence includes a dishonorable discharge and confinement at hard labor for five years.
During the sentence proceedings, the court-martial was informed that smoking marihuana was “an old thing” for the accused because he had been doing it since he was twelve years of age and “everybody seems to do it where he comes from.” No instruction was given as to the limited purpose for which the court could consider the evidence of offenses not charged. The omission was error. United States v Gewin, 14 USCMA 224, 34 CMR 4; United States v Turner, 16 USCMA 80, 36 CMR 236. Although the sentence imposed by the court-martial was reduced by the convening authority on the initial review, the effect of the instructional error on the sentence was not considered. Corrective action, therefore, is still required. Cf. United States v Peters, 8 USCMA 520, 25 CMR 24.
The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for submission to the board of review for reconsideration of the sentence, in light of this opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.