CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Shelton, 62 M.J. 1
Decided Sep 27, 2005 · No. 03-0694/AR · 2005 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 3 topics
Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 81 - Conspiracy Pre-2019 offenses
- appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit unpremeditated murder cannot be affirmed on appeal because the military judge’s instructions authorized the members to base the conviction on a finding of an intent to inflict great bodily harm; if the intent of the parties to the agreement was limited to the infliction of great bodily harm, their agreement was to commit aggravated assault, not unpremeditated murder
Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally
- appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit unpremeditated murder cannot be affirmed on appeal because the military judge’s instructions authorized the members to base the conviction on a finding of an intent to inflict great bodily harm; if the intent of the parties to the agreement was limited to the infliction of great bodily harm, their agreement was to commit aggravated assault, not unpremeditated murder
Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error
- even assuming that defense-requested witnesses possessed information relevant and necessary under RCM 703(b)(1) to demonstrate that appellant’s roommate had the motive and opportunity to kill the same person that appellant was charged with killing, and that appellant was entitled to their production, any error in denying their production was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the government’s case against appellant was very strong, to include detailed testimony from appellant’s co-actor that was corroborated by physical evidence and other testimony, and where the defense was unable to provide any reasonable explanation as to why appellant’s co-actor would substitute appellant for his roommate as his co-actor
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).