Case ID: cma_11/html/0502-01.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 ERNEST G. PETTERSON, Specialist Six, U. S. Army, Appellant
    11 USCMA 502, 29 CMR 318
    No. 13,827
    Decided May 27, 1960
    
      First Lieutenant Leonard Etz argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were Colonel Harley A. Lanning, Major Edward Fenig, and First Lieutenant James G. Garner.
    
    
      First Lieutenant Alvin B. Fox argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were Lieutenant Colonel James G. Mc-Conaughy and First Lieutenant Avram G. Hammer.
    
   Opinion of the Court

HomeR FERGUSON, Judge:

The accused was found guilty of twenty-one specifications of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921. He -was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, and confinement at hard labor for ■five years. Reducing the period of confinement involved to two years, the convening authority otherwise approved the •sentence. Following affirmance of the findings and sentence by the board of ■review, we granted accused’s petition on the issue whether the law officer erred prejudicially in overruling defense objections to the admission of certain depositions taken upon written interrogatories.

In view of the precisely stated objections of defense counsel, made both to the convening authority prior to the trial and to the law officer during the •proceedings, no question is presented ■concerning waiver of accused’s constitutional right to be confronted by the witnesses against him. Accordingly, our decision in United States v Jacoby, 11 USCMA 428, 29 CMR 244, is dis-positive.

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

The interested reader may find my views on this question set forth in United States v Sutton, 3 USCMA 220, 11 CMR 220; United States v Parrish, 7 USCMA 337, 22 CMR 127; and my dissenting opinion in United States v Jacoby, 11 USCMA 428, 29 CMR 244.