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 X— PUNITIVE ARTICLES
10 U.S.C. § 910
Art. 110. Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft
(a)Willful and Wrongful Hazarding.—Any person subject to this chapter who, willfully and wrongfully, hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.(b)Negligent Hazarding.—Any person subject to this chapter who negligently hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel or aircraft of the armed forces shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 71; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, § 5422, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2947.)Editorial NotesAmendments2016—Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who willfully and wrongfully hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel of the armed forces shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
“(b) Any person subject to this chapter who negligently hazards or suffers to be hazarded any vessel of the armed forces shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
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.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Rapert, 75 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
· cites it 2× “b, 86; Article 110, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 910 (2012). Moreover, whether a statement is uttered in jest or for an innocent or legitimate purpose is treated as a defense in the Military Judges’ Benchbook, not a mens rea requirement attaching to the word “wrongful.”
Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974).
· cites it 2× “110, 10 U. S. C. § 910 ; drunkenness on duty, Art.”
United States v. Roach, 29 M.J. 33 (1989).
“When the court-martial began, as part of a negotiated plea, the accused freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to willfully hazarding a vessel, and willfully disobeying the lawful order of his commanding officer, in violation of Articles 110 and 90, Uniform Code of Military…”
United States v. Lynch, 39 M.J. 223 (1994).
“Contrary to his pleas, appellant was found guilty of negligently hazarding a vessel, in violation of Article 110, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 910 . On October 5,1990, he was sentenced to a reprimand and reduction in lineal position by 150 numbers.”
United States v. Roach, 26 M.J. 859 (1988).
“§ 908 ; willfully hazarding a vessel, in violation of Article 110, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 910 ; and arson, in violation of Article 126, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.”
United States v. Morrison, 13 M.J. 649 (1982).
“Appellant was also convicted, contrary to his pleas, of conspiracy to hazard his vessel, a violation of Article 81, UCMJ, and of the negligent hazarding of his vessel, a violation of Article 110, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 910 . He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge from the naval…”
United States v. Tusing, 12 M.J. 608 (1981).
“Appellant was further charged under Article 110, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 910 , with willfully and wrongfully hazarding said vessel.”
United States v. Lynch, 35 M.J. 579 (1992).
“§ 892 and one specification of negligently hazarding a vessel in violation of Article 110, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 910 . He pled not guilty to both offenses, was acquitted of dereliction of duty, and convicted of hazarding a vessel.”
United States v. Drake, 10 M.J. 505 (1980).
“GREGORY, Senior Judge: Pursuant to his pleas, appellant was convicted at a general court-martial bench trial of hazarding a vessel by setting it on fire and of two specifications of aggravated arson, in violation of Articles 110 and 126, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10…”
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.