Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Morris L. BURSTON, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1975-07-11
Citations: 1 M.J. 76
Docket Number: No. 30,156
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Morris L. BURSTON, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Military Justice Reporter
Volume: 1
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Morris L. BURSTON, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant.
No. 30,156.
U. S. Court of Military Appeals.
July 11, 1975.
Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Captain Barry J. Wendt, and Captain John R. Osgood were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.
Captain Joel M. Martel and Captain Allan A. Toomey were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
The accused's conviction for possession of heroin is marred by the failure of the staff judge advocate's post-trial review to cover the defense of entrapment that was raised by the evidence presented at trial. This omission causes the review to be incomplete on an essential issue and, therefore, unacceptable. United States v. Cruse, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 286, 45 C.M.R. 60 (1972); United States v. Hooper, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 637, 26 C.M.R. 417 (1958).
The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the Court of Military Review. That court can disapprove the finding of guilty of possessing heroin and reassess the sentence on the remaining charge or order a new post-trial review and action by the convening authority.