CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic

U.S. v. Capel, 71 M.J. 485

Decided Feb 14, 2013 · No. 12-0320/AF · September 2012 Term · Opinion (PDF)

Digested under 1 topic

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 107 - False Official Statements Pre-2019 offenses

  1. a statement for purposes of Article 107 could be considered official when it fell into one of three categories: (1) where the speaker makes a false official statement in the line of duty or the statement bears a clear and direct relationship to the speaker’s official duties; (2) where the listener is a military member carrying out a military duty at the time the statement is made; or (3) where the listener is a civilian who is performing a military function at the time the speaker makes the statement
  2. an accused may make a false official statement for the purposes of Article 107, UCMJ, if the statement is made in the line of duty, or to civilian law enforcement officials if the statement bears a clear and direct relationship to the accused’s official duties; similarly, the statement at issue may be official for such purposes if the one to whom the statement is made is a civilian who is performing a military function at the time the accused makes the statement
  3. in this case, appellant’s statements to a civilian police detective denying that he had used another servicemember’s debit card were not official statements to support a conviction for making false official statements under Article 107, UCMJ, where appellant’s appearance at the civilian police station and his subsequent statements to the detective were not pursuant to any specific military duties on appellant’s part and where there was nothing in the record to indicate that at the time appellant made the statements, the detective was acting on behalf of military authorities or that he was in any other way performing a military function; while theft among military personnel can certainly impact unit morale and good order and discipline, it is the relationship of the statement to a military function at the time it is made – not the offense of larceny itself – that determines whether the statement falls within the scope of Article 107, UCMJ
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).