Case ID: cma_8/html/0399-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Homer Ferguson, Judge; LatimeR, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES, Appellee v RAYMOND E. SUMREL, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
    8 USCMA 399, 24 CMR 209
    No. 10,482
    Decided November 8, 1957
    
      Colonel Edioard M. O’Connell and First Lieutenant William L. Garwood were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.
    ; Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee and First Lieutenant Jay D. Fischer were on the brief for Appellee, United States.
   Opinion of the Court

Homer Ferguson, Judge;

In spite of his plea of not guilty, the accused was convicted of desertion for an unauthorized absence of five months germinated by surrender. The law officer, over defense objection, instructed the court that: “if the condition of ■absence without proper authority is much prolonged and there is no satisfactory- explanation of it, the court will be justified in inferring from that alone an intent to remain absent permanently.” Substantially the same instruction has been held prejudicially erroneous in United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382, and United States v Burgess, 8 USCMA 168, 23 CMR 387. For the reasons expressed in those opinions, the accused’s conviction must be reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for reference to a board of review. The board may, in its discretion, approve the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the sentence or it may order a rehearing on the desertion charge.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result.

The rule in United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 CMR 382, United States v Burgess, 8 USCMA 163, 23 CMR 387, and allied cases, has been fixed. I believe that my separate opinions in those cases are a sufficient indication of my disapproval of that rule. However, further dissents would serve no useful purpose and so I accept the principle as the law of this Court.