United States v. Murphy
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Juhl (United States Court of Military Appeals 1971)
- United States v. Burney (United States Court of Military Appeals 1971)
- United States v. Shrum (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1976)
- United States v. Wells (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1985)
- United States v. Kesteloot (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review 1978)
- United States v. Jobes (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1985)
- United States v. Ridgeway (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1984)
- United States v. Harder (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1983)
- United States v. DeSoto (U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review 1982)
- United States v. Swaney (U.S. Army Court of Military Review 1980)
- United States v. Smith (United States Court of Military Appeals 1976)
- United States v. Towns (United States Court of Military Appeals 1974)
- United States v. Lovejoy (United States Court of Military Appeals 1970)
- United States v. Cantu (U S Air Force Court of Military Review 1982)
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
The accused pleaded guilty to one specification of larceny of fragmentation vests, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921, and one specification of wrongful disposition of the same vests, alleged as a violation of Article 108, Code, supra, 10 USC § 908. At trial, the law officer instructed the court mem
On initial review, the convening authority reduced the sentence adjudged by the court-martial, but the reduction was to conform the punishment to that provided in a pretrial agreement with the accused. The instructional error, therefore, remains uncorrected.
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 Army for reference to the Court of Military Review for reassessment of the sentence in light of this opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.