Warning: mysqli_num_fields() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, boolean given in /home/ucmjdef1/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 3283

Pleading

  1. bestmilitarydefensedefenseattorneys9.59.20PMcopyAll principals are charged as if each was the perpetrator. R.C.M. 307(c)(3) discussion, H(i).
  2. United States v. Vidal, 23 M.J. 319 (C.M.A. 1987). Accused and PFC Hunt kidnapped German woman. Accused drove car to secluded area. PFC Hunt and then the accused had sexual intercourse with her in the back seat. Accused charged with a single specification of rape, but the specification did not indicate whether he was the perpetrator or an aider and abettor. The court affirmed the conviction, because the standard rape specification is sufficient to charge accused as perpetrator or aider and abettor, and the prosecution is not required to elect between those two theories. See also United States v. Westmoreland, 31 M.J. 160 (C.M.A. 1990) (judge can instruct, and accused can be convicted, under an aiding and abetting theory, even though case has not been presented on that theory); United States v. Dayton, 29 M.J. 6 (C.M.A. 1989) (government is entitled to prosecute the accused for distribution of LSD on the alternate theories that he is guilty as a perpetrator or as an aider and abettor).