CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Bean, 62 M.J. 264
Decided Dec 22, 2005 · No. 05-0101/AF · 2006 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 3 topics
Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 128 - Assault Pre-2019 offenses
- engaging the safety of a loaded, operable firearm while pointing it at another, as a matter of law, does not remove its character as a dangerous weapon
Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Lesser-included offenses
- a military judge has a duty to instruct sua sponte on all lesser-included offenses reasonably raised by the evidence; an accused is entitled to have a court-martial consider all reasonable alternatives to guilt; toward this end, as long as an accused can show some evidence that reasonably raises the applicability of a lesser-included offense, the military judge must instruct the panel on that lesser-included offense; evidence reasonably raises a lesser-included offense if it could cause members to attach credit or rely upon it if they so choose; finally, any doubt whether the evidence is sufficient to raise the need to instruct on a lesser-included offense must be resolved in favor of the accused
- where the evidence showed that an intoxicated accused pointed a loaded firearm at others, having first threatened the others verbally and with a knife, and having assumed a firing position, the lesser-included offense of simple assault was not reasonably raised, whether the firearm’s safety was engaged or not
Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.
- an appellate court reviews allegations of error involving mandatory instructions de novo
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).