United States v. Adams
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Specialist DAVID P. VANBUREN (U S Army Court of Criminal Appeals 2024)
- United States v. Private E2 NATHANIEL I. GILKEY (U S Army Court of Criminal Appeals 2024)
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
In a single assignment of error the appellant contends that Charge I and its specification alleging the attempted wrongful impersonation of a criminal investigation division (CID) agent fails to state an offense citing United States v. Yum, 10 M.J. 1 (C.M.A. 1980). The Specification of Charge I provides in relevant part:
In that Private First Class Thomas W. Adams ... did, at Tongduchon, Korea, on or about 16 October 1981, attempt to impersonate an Army Criminal Investigation Division Agent (CID) by wrongfully, willfully and unlawfully informing military police authorities that he (Adams) was an undercover CID Agent and was attempting to buy some [codeine], with intent to deceive and escape possible apprehension by police authorities ....
We find Yum inapposite and affirm. The specification here, unlike Yum, alleges something more than a “bare false representation”; it asserts that the accused wrongfully informed the military police that he was an undercover CID agent attempting to buy codeine, an act calculated to deceive the authorities and thereby escape impending apprehension. Clearly this action evinced more than “mere bravado” the deficiency in Yum.
The findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.