- Article 111, UCMJ, has been expanded by Congress to prohibit physically controlling, as well as operating, a vehicle while impaired by a controlled substance; the very purpose of the legislation is to remove impaired people from the driver’s seat; so unless the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in the driver’s seat, rather than the passenger seat, while impaired, the government has not established an Article 111, UCMJ, offense
- in this case, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable factfinder could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was in the driver’s seat of the car while he was impaired; a witness statement indicating that the witness was in the back seat and the accused and his wife were in the front seat and that was normal was legally insufficient to establish that the accused was in the driver’s seat
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.A.35 · Crimes Pre-2019 offenses
Article 111 - Drunken or Reckless Operation of Vehicle, Aircraft, or Vessel
Offenses committed before 1 January 2019 (pre-2016 amendment) — opinions from the 1999 through 2020 Terms of Court.
1 digested opinion, 2005–2005 Terms
2005
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 · digest page IIIA35 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).