10 U.S.C. § 917
Art. 117. Provoking speeches or gestures
Any person subject to this chapter who uses provoking or reproachful words or gestures towards any other person subject to this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: United States v. Killion, 75 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
United States v. Killion, 75 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2016). “Words are considered provoking and a violation of Arti- cle 117, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 917 (2012), when, inter alia, “a reasonable person would expect [them] to induce a breach of the peace under the cir- cumstances.”
United States v. Nealy, 71 M.J. 73 (C.A.A.F. 2012). “As a result, I concur in the result. However, if Article 117, UCMJ, was not in fact an LIO, as the majority concludes, I do not see how one can reach the conclusion that the court-martial had jurisdiction under R.”
United States v. Holt, 27 M.J. 57 (1988). “Opinion of the Court EVERETT, Chief Judge: Before a military judge sitting alone as a general court-martial, Sergeant Holt pleaded guilty to one specification each of provoking speech and wrongful distribution of methamphetamine, in violations of Articles 117 and 112a, Uniform…”
United States v. Linyear, 3 M.J. 1027 (1977). “” The words neither expressly nor by fair implication constitute an indecent communication as they cannot reasonably be construed to convey a libidinous message. Therefore, the specification fails to allege the offense of communicating indecent, obscene, or insulting, language…”
United States v. Torres, 7 M.J. 102 (1979). “Opinion of the Court FLETCHER, Chief Judge: The appellant was found guilty at a special court-martial of the use of provoking words, robbery, and assault with the intent to commit robbery, in violation of Articles 117, 122 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§…”
United States v. Richardson, 7 M.J. 320 (1979). “dvocate that appellant’s statements during the sentencing portion of the trial raised an issue relating to the status and authority of the commissioned officer and noncommissioned officer involved, the supervisory authority approved only so much of the findings of guilty to…”
United States v. Hazard, 8 C.M.A. 530 (1957). “” A second was for an instruction that the court-martial could consider the lesser offense of using provoking speech in violation of Article 117 of the Code, 10 USC § 917 , if it had a reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt of the principal offense.”
United States v. Oatney, 41 M.J. 619 (N.M.C.C.A. 1994). “The President lists two lesser included offenses to a charge of communicating a threat: provoking speeches or gestures under Article 117, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 917 , and attempts under Article 80, UCMJ, 10 U.”
United States v. Saunders, 6 M.J. 731 (1978). “Appellant was charged with provoking speeches and gestures, aggravated assault (2 specifications), assault and battery (2 specifications), and absence without leave (2 specifications), in violation of Articles 117, 128, and 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 917…”
United States v. Peszynski, 40 M.J. 874 (1994). “By contrast, the verbal and non-verbal expression alleged in Specifications 4, 5, and 6 of Charge III in this case carries no such label or criminal description.”
United States v. Caudill, 10 M.J. 787 (1981). “DECISION MILES, Judge: ■ Contrary to his pleas, the accused was convicted by a military judge sitting as a special court-martial of provoking speech, assault and obstruction of justice, violations of Articles 117, 128 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 917 ,…”
United States v. Shropshire, 34 M.J. 757 (1992). “The crime of provoking speech is proscribed by Article 117, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 917 . “Provoking” words are those “which are used in the presence of the person to whom they are directed and which a reasonable person would expect to induce a breach of the peace under the *758…”
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.