U.S. Code
»
Title 10
» Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VII— TRIAL PROCEDURE
10 U.S.C. § 852
Art. 52. Votes required for conviction, sentencing, and other matters
(a)In General.—No person may be convicted of an offense in a general or special court-martial, other than—(1) after a plea of guilty under section 845(b) of this title (article 45(b));(2) by a military judge in a court-martial with a military judge alone, under section 816 of this title (article 16); or(3) in a court-martial with members under section 816 of this title (article 16), by the concurrence of at least three-fourths of the members present when the vote is taken.(b)Level of Concurrence Required.—(1)In general.—Except as provided in subsection (a) and in paragraph (2), all matters to be decided by members of a general or special court-martial shall be determined by a majority vote, but a reconsideration of a finding of guilty or reconsideration of a sentence, with a view toward decreasing the sentence, may be made by any lesser vote which indicates that the reconsideration is not opposed by the number of votes required for that finding or sentence.(2)Sentencing.—A sentence of death requires (A) a unanimous finding of guilty of an offense in this chapter expressly made punishable by death and (B) a unanimous determination by the members that the sentence for that offense shall include death. All other sentences imposed by members shall be determined by the concurrence of at least three-fourths of the members present when the vote is taken.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 55; Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(22), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1340; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVII, § 5235, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2916.)In subsections (a) and (b), the word “may” is substituted for the word “shall”.
In subsection (b)(2), the words “for more than” are substituted for the words “in excess of”.
In subsection (c), the word “disqualifies” is substituted for the words “shall disqualify”. The word “is” is substituted for the words “shall be” in the last two sentences.
Editorial NotesAmendments2016—Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section consisted of subsecs. (a) to (c) relating to number of votes required for conviction of an offense for which the death penalty is mandatory, sentences, and all other questions, respectively.
1968—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(22)(A), inserted reference to the exception provided in section 845(b) of this title (article 45(b)).
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(22)(B), provided that a determination to reconsider a finding of guilty or to reconsider a sentence, with a view toward decreasing it, may be made by a vote of less than a majority vote which indicates that the reconsideration is not opposed by the number of votes required for that finding or sentence.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
Effective Date of 1968 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 90–632 effective first day of tenth month following October 1968, see section 4 of Pub. L. 90–632, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996).
· cites it 2× “The Rule also requires unanimous findings (1) that at least one aggravating factor is present and (2) that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any admissible aggravating circumstances, 1004(b).”
United States v. Garner, 71 M.J. 430 (C.A.A.F. 2013).
· cites it 2× “) 1009(e)(3); see also Article 52(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 852 (c) (2006). To reconsider a sentence with a view to increasing the punishment, a majority of the members must 2 United States v.”
United States v. Woods, 74 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F. 2015).
“Article 52(a)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 852 (a)(2) (2012). *243 DISCUSSION “A military judge’s ruling on a challenge for cause is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Morley, 952 P.2d 167 (Wash. 1998).
“article 52, 10 U.S.C. § 852 . Morley’s observations involving the role of a jury in a court-martial proceeding are immaterial to his particular court-martial: Morley expressly waived his right to be tried by a jury, and he voluntarily submitted his trial to a military judge.”
Garrett v. Lowe, 39 M.J. 293 (1994).
· cites it 2× “He acknowledges that Article 52(a)(2), UCMJ, 10 USC § 852 (a)(2), requires only a two-thirds vote to convict for any offense except where death is by law a mandatory punishment, which does not include felony-murder, see Art.”
United States v. Gray, 51 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 1999).
“Article 73, UCMJ, 10 USC § 873 (1968), provides: § 873.”
United States v. Matthews, 16 M.J. 354 (1983).
“Article 52(b)(1), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 852 (b)(1). Cf. Article 52(b)(2) and (3).”
Sanford v. United States, 586 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
“10 U.S.C. § 852 . Members of the court-martial are selected on the basis of being “best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament.”
United States v. Scheurer, 62 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2005).
“While NK was a minor at the time of the offenses, he was eighteen years old when he testified at Appellant’s Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 852 (2000), investigation. 6 Id.”
United States v. Hendon, 6 M.J. 171 (1979).
“Article 52(b)(2), (3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 852 (b)(2), (3). Sentence deliberation by the court members begins with a general discussion of the matter, proceeds to presentation of proposals for specific sentences, and concludes with a vote by secret written ballot 2 on each…”
United States v. Satterley, 55 M.J. 168 (C.A.A.F. 2001).
· cites it 2× “52, UCMJ, 10 USC § 852 . Members of the court-martial may interrogate witnesses through the submission of questions to the military judge.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.