10 U.S.C. § 909
Art. 109. Property other than military property of United States—Waste, spoilage, or destruction
Any person subject to this chapter who willfully or recklessly wastes, spoils, or otherwise willfully and wrongfully destroys or damages any property other than military property of the United States shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: United States v. Rapert, 75 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
United States v. Rapert, 75 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2016). “, Article 109, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 909 (2012); MCM pt. IV, ¶¶ 33, 34, 68.”
United States v. Owens, 51 M.J. 204 (C.A.A.F. 1999). “A general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of four specifications of damaging private property, and five specifications of larceny, in violation of Articles 109 and 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§…”
United States v. Brown, 65 M.J. 227 (C.A.A.F. 2007). “Before a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members, Appellant was tried for ten specifications arising from three charges: willful damage to others’ property (three specifications), assault (five specifications), wrongfully communicating a threat and…”
United States v. Johanns, 17 M.J. 862 (1983). “, Article 109, 10 U.S.C. § 909 ; (15) conspiracy other than to defraud the United States by means of a false claim, see Naval Courts and Boards, section 112, and U.”
United States v. Schelin, 15 M.J. 218 (1983). “By comparison, Article 109, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 909 , pertaining to waste, spoilage, destruction, or damage of “property other than military property of the United States,” requires a higher mens rea than simple negligence.”
United States v. Yoakum, 8 M.J. 763 (1980). “The court also found appellant guilty of willfully damaging the vehicles in violation of Article 109, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 909 (1976), and imposed a sentence of confinement at hard labor for two years, forfeiture of $400.”
United States v. Shields, 20 M.J. 174 (1985). “Opinion COX, Judge: Despite his pleas, the accused was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully destroying private property, assault with a means likely to produce grievous bodily harm, and wrongfully communicating a threat on two occasions, in violation of Articles…”
United States v. Ortiz, 24 M.J. 164 (1987). “not defined in the Code, it is treated in the Manual discussion of Article 109, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 909 , which prohibits destruction or damage of property other than military property.”
United States v. Hill, 45 M.J. 245 (C.A.A.F. 1996). “109, 121, and 134, UCMJ, 10 USC §§ 909 , 921, and 934, respectively.”
United States v. Mitchell, 15 M.J. 238 (1983). “Opinion of the Court FLETCHER, Judge: Contrary to his pleas, appellant was found guilty of damaging private property, disorderly conduct, and assault on a non-commissioned officer, in violation of Articles 109,134, and 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 909 ,…”
United States v. Norris, 33 M.J. 635 (1991). “§ 928 ; one specification of destruction of private property in violation of Article 109, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 909 ; and one specification of communicating a threat to injure, one specification of impersonating an agent of superior authority, and one specification of obstructing…”
United States v. Bryant, 9 M.J. 918 (1980). “ent because he admitted guilt to being only an accessory after the fact or receiving stolen property, but not larceny; (b) that his plea of guilty to reckless destruction of private property was improvident because reckless destruction of private personal property, as…”
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.