United States v. Steveson, 9 C.M.A. 332 (1958). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Steveson, 9 C.M.A. 332 (1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
78 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Frye (uscgcoca, 2003-03-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1960 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1960 1993 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Frye
uscgcoca · 2003 · confidence medium
United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332, 337 , 26 C.M.R. 112, 117 (C.M.A. 1958); United States v. Williams, 18 M.J. 186, 189 (C.M.A. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Freeman
uscgcoca · 2003 · confidence medium
United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332, 337 , 26 C.M.R. 112, 117 (C.M.A. 1958); United States v. Williams, 18 M.J. 186, 189 (C.M.A. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Smith
A.C.C.A. · 1996 · confidence medium
United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332, 337, n. 5 , 26 C.M.R. 112 , 117 n. 5, 1958 WL 3315 (1958); United States v. Williams, 18 M.J. at 189 n. 6; United States v. Higdon, 2 M.J. 445, 456 (AC.M.R.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rascoe (2×)
usnmcmilrev · 1990 · confidence medium
M.A. 332, 339, 26 C.M.R. 112, 119 (1958); Hill v. United States, 298 U.S. 460 , 56 S.Ct. 760 , 80 L.Ed. 1283 (1936).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Combs (2×)
usafctmilrev · 1983 · confidence medium
United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332, at 337, note 5 , 26 C.M.R. 112, at 117, note 5 (1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Oldham (2×)
usnmcmilrev · 1980 · confidence medium
There is authority for the proposition that “all factors being equal, a sentence which includes a fine is a more severe sentence than one in which a forfeiture has been adjudged.” United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332, 339 , 26 C.M.R. 112, 119 (1958).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hinkle
usnmcmilrev · 1979 · confidence medium
United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332, 339 , 26 C.M.R. 112, 119 (1958).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brown
cma · 1976 · confidence medium
United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332, 339 , 26 C.M.R. 112, 119 (1958).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dill
usafctmilrev · 1976 · confidence medium
We must, however, acknowledge appellate defense counsel’s point that the case of United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332 , 26 C.M.R. 112, 119 (1958), tends to support their position.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Higdon (2×)
usarmymilrev · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Cuen, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 332 , 26 C.M.R. 112 (1958).
examined Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Landry (3×)
cma · 1964 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v Smith, 10 USCMA 153 , 27 CMR 227 ; United States v Simpson, 10 USCMA 229 , 27 CMR 303 ; United States v Varnadore, 9 USCMA 471 , 26 CMR 251 ; see also United States v Cuen, 9 USCMA 332 , footnote 5, 26 CMR 112 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES
v.
BENNIE STEVESON, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force
No. 11,071.
United States Court of Military Appeals.
Jun 6, 1958.
9 C.M.A. 332
Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb and Major Donald C. Helling were on the brief for Appellant, Accused., Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels and Major Carl Goldschlager were on the brief for Appellee, United States.
Published

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused contends that he was denied due process of law because he was represented by a nonlawyer at the pretrial investigation held pursuant to Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 832. At the trial, however, he was represented by qualified counsel. The accused interposed no objection to the pretrial investigation and made no request for a continuance for further preparation. It is not alleged, and it nowhere appears, that the accused was prejudiced in any way by the lack of qualification of appointed counsel at the pretrial investigation. The error, therefore, is not prejudicial. United States v Mickel, 9 USCMA 324, 26 CMR 104.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.