10 U.S.C. § 895

Art. 95. Offenses by sentinel or lookout

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Drunk or Sleeping on Post, or Leaving Post Before Being Relieved.—Any sentinel or lookout who is drunk on post, who sleeps on post, or who leaves post before being regularly relieved, shall be punished—(1) if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; and(2) if the offense is committed other than in time of war, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.(b)Loitering or Wrongfully Sitting on Post.—Any sentinel or lookout who loiters or wrongfully sits down on post shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 72, § 913; renumbered § 895 and amended Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, §§ 5401(8), 5411, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2938, 2943.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
913	50:707.	May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 113), 64 Stat. 139.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 895 was renumbered section 887a of this title.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328, § 5411, amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Any sentinel or look-out who is found drunk or sleeping upon his post, or leaves it before he is regularly relieved, shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.”

Pub. L. 114–328, § 5401(8), renumbered section 913 of this title as this section.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment 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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 117 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case: United States v. Medina, 66 M.J. 21 (C.A.A.F. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Medina, 66 M.J. 21 (C.A.A.F. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 895 (4), could not be sustained but his answers during the providence inquiry established his guilt of escape from confinement in violation of Article 95(4), UCMJ, “the technical variance between the offense alleged and that which is established from an accused’s own lips does…”

United States v. Allison, 63 M.J. 365 (C.A.A.F. 2006). · cites it 2× “Allison was charged with fleeing apprehension, rape, assault with a means likely to produce grievous bodily harm, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault upon a police officer, and burglary with intent to commit rape in violation of Articles 95, 120, 128, and 129, Uniform Code…”

United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001). · cites it 2× “Article 95, UCMJ, 10 USC § 895 6 The majority cannot have it both ways.”

United States v. Marshall, 67 M.J. 418 (C.A.A.F. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 895 (2000), are as follows: (a) That a certain person apprehended the accused; (b) That said person was authorized to apprehend the accused; and (c) That the accused freed himself or herself from custody before being released by proper authority.”

United States v. Miller, 67 M.J. 385 (C.A.A.F. 2009). “At Appellant’s subsequent court-martial, the panel convicted him, contrary to his pleas, inter alia, of resisting apprehension in violation of Article 95, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 895 (2000). 2 On appeal, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) found the evidence…”

United States v. Morton, 69 M.J. 12 (C.A.A.F. 2010). “Nonetheless, because the offenses were proscribed by the same article, and carried the same maximum punishments, in the view of the Court, this amounted to a “technical variance” without resulting in material prejudice to the accused under Article 59, UCMJ, 10 U.”

United States v. Epps, 25 M.J. 319 (1987). “1982), we ruled that, when an accused pleaded guilty to escape from custody, in violation of Article 95 of the Uniform Code, 10 U.S.C. § 895 , but his answers during the providence inquiry showed that he was guilty of escape from confinement, in violation of the same Article,…”

United States v. Felty, 12 M.J. 438 (1982). “, Article 95, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 895 , which proscribes “escape from custody” and Article 7(a), UCMJ, 10 U.”

United States v. Anderson, 36 M.J. 963 (1993). · cites it 2× “Afterwards she was killed, and Sergeant Anderson drove away from the apartment, dropped the child for safekeeping, and fled.”

United States v. Doss, 15 M.J. 409 (1983). “Having determined the guilty pleas were provident, the military judge reserved his findings until he could hear evidence on a contested charge that, in violation of Article 95 of the Code, 10 U.S.C. § 895 , appellant had resisted apprehension at 1405 hours on August 31.”

United States v. Levite, 25 M.J. 334 (1987). “Contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of escape from custody, wrongful distribution of marijuana on two separate occasions, and wrongful possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of Articles 95 and 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§…”

United States v. Glover, 50 M.J. 476 (C.A.A.F. 1999). · cites it 2× “A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of resisting apprehension, damaging military property (2 specifications), reckless driving, and wrongful use of an inhalant (3 specifications), in violation of Articles 95, 108, 111,…”

Show all 117 citing cases →

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.