U.S. v. Murphy, 74 M.J. 302

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. a military judge has a duty to accurately inform an appellant of the nature of his offense and an essential aspect of informing is a correct definition of legal concepts; however, failure to define correctly a legal concept or explain each and every element of the charged offense to the accused in a clear and precise manner is not reversible error if it is clear from the entire record that the accused knew the elements, admitted them freely, and pleaded guilty because he was guilty
2. (during the providence inquiry, in defining the term explosives for the purpose of sentence enhancement in a larceny offense, a military judge should inform an accused of the definition provided in RCM 103(11) and the definitions provided in 18 USC § 232(5) and § 844(j), given that these statutes are explicitly incorporated into RCM 103(11)

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 121 - Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation Pre-2019 offenses

1. the MCM prescribes an increased maximum punishment for larceny of an explosive, irrespective of value
2. the 5000 rounds of 5.56 millimeter ammunition that appellant stole are included in the definition of explosive provided in RCM 103(11); small arms ammunition constitutes an explosive and is included in RCM 103(11)
3. because the 5000 rounds of 5.56 millimeter ammunition that appellant stole were included in the definition of explosive provided in RCM 103(11) and because appellant described all the facts necessary to establish his guilt to larceny of an explosive, a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning his guilty plea to larceny of an explosive did not exist
4. (during the providence inquiry, in defining the term explosives for the purpose of sentence enhancement in a larceny offense, a military judge should inform an accused of the definition provided in RCM 103(11) and the definitions provided in 18 USC § 232(5) and § 844(j), given that these statutes are explicitly incorporated into RCM 103(11)

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. because the 5000 rounds of 5.56 millimeter ammunition that appellant stole were included in the definition of explosive provided in RCM 103(11) and because appellant described all the facts necessary to establish his guilt to larceny of an explosive, a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning his guilty plea to larceny of an explosive did not exist
2. a guilty plea is provident so long as appellant was convinced of, and was able to describe, all of the facts necessary to establish his guilt
3. a military judge has a duty to accurately inform an appellant of the nature of his offense and an essential aspect of informing is a correct definition of legal concepts; however, failure to define correctly a legal concept or explain each and every element of the charged offense to the accused in a clear and precise manner is not reversible error if it is clear from the entire record that the accused knew the elements, admitted them freely, and pleaded guilty because he was guilty
4. (during the providence inquiry, in defining the term explosives for the purpose of sentence enhancement in a larceny offense, a military judge should inform an accused of the definition provided in RCM 103(11) and the definitions provided in 18 USC § 232(5) and § 844(j), given that these statutes are explicitly incorporated into RCM 103(11)

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

1. an appellate court will not disturb a guilty plea unless appellant has demonstrated that there is a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the plea
2. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion and questions of law arising from the guilty plea de novo
3. it is axiomatic that in determining the scope of a statute, an appellate court looks first to its language; it further looks to provisions of related statutes; the same interpretive process is applied when analyzing a rule promulgated by the President in the MCM

Miscellaneous Matters: Manual for Courts-Martial: Generally

1. the MCM prescribes an increased maximum punishment for larceny of an explosive, irrespective of value

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

1. it is axiomatic that in determining the scope of a statute, an appellate court looks first to its language; it further looks to provisions of related statutes; the same interpretive process is applied when analyzing a rule promulgated by the President in the MCM