U.S. v. Crafter, 64 M.J. 209

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Charges and Specifications

1. a specification states an offense if it alleges, either expressly or by implication, every element of the offense, so as to give the accused notice and protection against double jeopardy
2. a specification that is susceptible to multiple meanings is different from a specification that is facially deficient; although a facially deficient specification cannot be saved by reference to proof at trial or to a rule referenced in the specification, it is appropriate to consider such matters in the case of a specification susceptible to multiple meanings
3. the true test of the sufficiency of a specification is not whether it could have been made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprises the accused of what he must be prepared to meet; and, in case any other proceedings are taken against him for a similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction
4. the declaration in a bribery specification that appellant, a prison guard, accepted money “for” arranging a male prisoner’s private meeting with a female friend was sufficient to allege the intent to influence or induce an official act, an element of the offense at issue, where (1) the specification cited the specific regulation allegedly violated by appellant and that citation clarified that appellant was charged with accepting money with the intent to influence or induce his actions, and (2) the record demonstrated that appellant was on notice of the charge where defense counsel affirmatively addressed the element of whether appellant had the intent to induce or influence an official act, arguing to the panel that the evidence was insufficient, and the military judge instructed the members -- without defense objection -- on the elements of the offense of bribery, including the requirement that appellant acted with intent to influence or induce

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. failure to object does not waive the issue of a specification’s legal sufficiency; if, however, a specification has not been challenged prior to findings and sentence, the sufficiency of the specification may be sustained if the necessary facts appear in any form or by fair construction can be found within the terms of the specification
2. the question of whether a specification states an offense is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

1. failure to object does not waive the issue of a specification’s legal sufficiency