10 U.S.C. § 859
Art. 59. Error of law; lesser included offense
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
859(a) 859(b) | 50:646(a). 50:646(b). | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 59), 64 Stat. 127. |
The word “may” is substituted for the word “shall”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,795
cases (1,166 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Winckelmann
United States v. Winckelmann (2013)
“However, the concurrence argued for a 8 10 U.S.C. § 859 (a) (2012). 10 United States v.”
United States v. Humphries (2012)
“§ 859 (a) (2006), which states: “A finding or sentence of court-martial may not be held incorrect on the ground of an error of law unless the error materially 12 United States v. Humphries, 10-5004/AF prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.”
United States v. Gilley (2001)
“59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859 (a).2 2. Did the military judge commit plain error by allowing trial counsel to refer to appellant’s request for counsel in his findings argument and by failing to provide a curative instruction? More difficult are the subsequent references to…”
United States v. Nerad (2010)
“12 Nor did the CCA identify tangible factors, either by reference to other charges in the case or by reference to other 12 Under the present circumstances, where the CCA did not purport to disapprove the finding on the basis of a legal error, this case simply does not implicate…”
United States v. Medina (2008)
“” Article 59(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859 (b) (2000). The Government argues, as the lower court concluded, that Article 134(2), UCMJ, is inherently a lesser included offense of Article 134(3), UCMJ.”
United States v. Jones (2005)
“1997) (“We hold that a de-novo-review standard to assess prejudice [is] required by Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859 (a) . . . .”); Tardif, 57 M.”
United States v. Tunstall (2013)
“Plain error review in this court is governed by Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859 (a). The key difference between these two sources of law is that Fed.”
United States v. Fletcher (2005)
“Plain Error Finally, for the same reasons that Appellant cannot show material prejudice to his substantial rights under Article 59(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 859 (a) (2000), he cannot succeed on plain error.”
United States v. Tardif (2002)
“We further hold that this authority under Article 66(c) is distinct from the court’s authority under Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859 (a), to overturn a finding or sentence “on the ground of an error of law[.”
United States v. Flesher (2014)
“” 10 U.S.C. § 859 (a) (2012); United States v.”
United States v. Sewell (2017)
“Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859 (a) (2012). I. FACTS A. The Convictions Appellant’s convictions involved six different individuals.”
United States v. Toohey (2006)
“We are also concerned with the lower court’s “see also” reference to Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859 (a) (2000), in connection with its Article 66(c), UCMJ, powers.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) — 4 cases
United States v. Davis (2007)
United States v. Saul (1988)
United States v. Meng (1995)
United States v. Taylor (1988)
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.