U.S. v. Ranney, 67 M.J. 297

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 90 - Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying Superior Commissioned Officer Pre-2019 offenses

1. the elements of the offense of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer are: (a) that the accused received a lawful command from a certain commissioned officer; (b) that this officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused; (c) that the accused then knew that this officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and (d) that the accused willfully disobeyed the lawful command; in addition, the order must be directed specifically to the subordinate; violations of regulations, standing orders, or directives, or failure to perform previously established duties are not punishable under Article 90, but may violate Article 92
2. appellant’s failure to obey an order revoking his driving privileges after he was detained for drunk driving did not amount to willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer, where base security forces issued the order in a form letter under the signature, and with the authority of the base traffic review officer, but without his personal involvement or knowledge; the order was not a direct and personal order, and nothing lifted this routine action above the common ruck; thus, appellant’s disobedience of that order was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction under Article 90, UCMJ
3. the base traffic review officer’s personal memorandum specifically responding to appellant’s written request for reinstatement of limited driving privileges did not change the legal landscape of the original order revoking appellant’s driving privileges, where that memorandum did not contain the lawful command appellant was charged with willfully disobeying; furthermore, the memorandum did not “ratify” the original order and thereby transform it into the lawful command of a superior officer for the purposes of Article 90, UCMJ; although the base traffic review officer personally reviewed appellant’s case and issued a memorandum continuing the suspension of appellant’s driving privileges, that action neither cured the lack of personal involvement afflicting the original order nor lifted that routine administrative sanction above the common ruck; the contract principle of ratification cannot be used to transform an automatic and routine driving restriction into the lawful command of a superior commissioned officer, after the fact, in order to create additional criminal liability

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 91 - Insubordinate Conduct Toward Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer, or Petty Officer Pre-2019 offenses

1. Article 91, UCMJ, like Article 90, UCMJ, makes punishable disobedience only of lawful commands
2. an order is presumed to be lawful, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting the presumption; nevertheless, an order purporting to regulate personal affairs is not lawful unless it has a military purpose
3. an order requiring appellant to cease his unprofessional relationship with a female Marine in the same multi-service detachment had a legally sufficient nexus to the military duty of maintaining the discipline and morale of the detachment to be presumptively lawful; the NCO who issued the order testified that he believed that the relationship would compromise the ability of the detachment’s NCOs to enforce various restrictions placed on junior Marine enlisted members and that although the relationship had not yet caused any specific problems within the unit, he believed it had the potential to become a problem over time; in the absence of any evidence that the order was in fact issued for a private end, and with a sufficient nexus between the mandate and a stated military duty – good order and discipline - extant in the record, the presumption that the order was lawful remained intact

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 92 - Failure to Obey Order or Regulation Pre-2019 offenses

1. although the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding of guilty of willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer’s order revoking appellant’s driving privileges where base security forces issued the order in a form letter under the signature, and with the authority of the base traffic review officer, but without his personal involvement or knowledge, the evidence was legally sufficient to affirm a finding of guilty to the lesser included offense of failure to obey an order, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ

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

1. the test for legal sufficiency requires appellate courts to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government; if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence is legally sufficient
2. an appellate court considers the legality of an order de novo

Miscellaneous Matters: Manual for Courts-Martial: Force and Effect

1. although MCM explanations of offenses are not binding on the CAAF, they are generally treated as persuasive authority, to be evaluated in light of the CAAF’s precedent