10 U.S.C. § 878
Art. 78. Accessory after the fact
Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: United States v. Loving, 41 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 1994).
United States v. Loving, 41 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 1994). “78, UCMJ, 10 USC § 878 ; para. 3b(4), Part IV. While Ms.”
United States v. McConnico, 7 M.J. 302 (1979). “Opinion FLETCHER, Chief Judge: A military judge found Specialist Four Donald McConnico guilty of being an accessory after the fact, in violation of Article 78, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 878 . Such a finding was contrary to the appellant’s pleas.”
United States v. Morton, 69 M.J. 12 (C.A.A.F. 2010). “Suggesting an alternative theory for upholding the plea, however, the Court stated that the accused “probably was an accessory after the fact to the crime of larceny” under Article 78, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 878 , a completely different statutory offense.”
United States v. Epps, 25 M.J. 319 (1987). “78, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 878 . For this offense, the maximum confinement authorized is only one-half that which may be adjudged for larceny.”
United States v. Timberlake, 18 M.J. 371 (1984). “, Articles 78, 80-105, 107-17, 119-32, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 878 , 880-905, 907-17, 919-32, respectively.”
Rafi Dhakaa Khan v. Col. William L. Hart, 943 F.2d 1261 (10th Cir. 1991). “21 (larceny and wrongful appropriation), 122 (robbery), 123 (forgery), 123a (making, drawing or uttering check, draft or order without sufficient funds), 124 (maiming), 125 (sodomy), 126 (arson), 127 (extortion), 128 (assault), 129 (burglary), 130 (housebreaking), 131 (perjury),…”
United States v. Redmond, 21 M.J. 319 (1986). “As an alternative charge to premeditated murder, Private First Class Kathleen Rodgers was named as the principal and Redmond was charged with preventing her apprehension and trial by assisting her in hiding the victim’s body and in helping her to dispose of certain material…”
United States v. Lampani, 14 M.J. 22 (1982). “The two additional charges alleged that appellant had been an accessory after the fact to the larceny “by receiving and storing said motorcycle at his residence, by aiding in the disassembly of said motorcycle, and by aiding in the disposal of said motorcycle,” in violation of…”
United States v. Smith, 5 M.J. 129 (1978). “Opinion of the Court PERRY, Judge: The appellant was convicted by a special court-martial as an accessory after the fact to the larceny 1 of a Central Jersey Bank and Trust Company personal money order, in violation of Article 78, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §…”
United States v. Farence, 57 M.J. 674 (2002). “§ 934 ; one specification of accessory after the fact to wrongful acceptance of shrimp by station personnel during law enforcement boardings, by concealing the illegally obtained shrimp to avoid detection, in violation of Article 78, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 878 ; and one specification…”
United States v. Edmond, 41 M.J. 419 (C.A.A.F. 1995). “Contrary to his pleas, appellant was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to attempted sodomy, 3 bad-check offenses, and committing an indecent act, in violation of Articles 78 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 878 and 934, respectively. The…”
United States v. Kent, 9 M.J. 836 (1980). “99) from the base exchange warehouse, and making a false official statement and falsely swearing to it, in violation of Articles 78, 107, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 878 , 907, 934. The adjudged and approved sentence is a bad conduct discharge,…”
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.