Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. DENNIS R. PARKS, Fireman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1967-06-09
Citations: 17 C.M.A. 87
Docket Number: No. 20,102
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee v DENNIS R. PARKS, Fireman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant
Judges: 
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Volume: 17
Pages: 87–88

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v DENNIS R. PARKS, Fireman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant
17 USCMA 87, 37 CMR 351
No. 20,102
June 9, 1967
Major L. G. Bohlen, USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas P. Casey, USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The accused stands convicted of a five-minute unauthorized absence and striking a petty officer who was in the execution of his office, in violation of Articles 86 and 91, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886 and 891, respectively. A divided board of review affirmed the conviction. We granted review to consider the accused's contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings of guilty.
A number of trial and post-trial errors are apparent on examination of the record. Among the former is a ruling, over defense objection, allowing a prosecution rebuttal witness to testify to his personal opinion as to "whether or not he's [the accused] telling the truth." (Emphasis supplied.) See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 138f; cf. United States v Jefferies, 12 USCMA 259, 30 CMR 259. Included in the latter, is a statement in the post-trial advice that as to the assault charge the accused's "plea of guilty . established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"; in fact, the accused pleaded not guilty. See United States v James, 1 USCMA 379, 3 CMR 113. After pondering all that happened below, we are convinced that the findings of guilty and the sentence should not stand. United States v Yerger, 1 USCMA 288, 290, 3 CMR 22.
In his action on the sentence, the convening authority provided for re-misssion of the bad-conduct discharge at the end of a probationary period. The period has expired, as has the executed portion of the confinement imposed by the court-martial. Under the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by a rehearing of the cause. See United States v Sheeks, 16 USCMA 430, 37 CMR 50. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is reversed, and the charges are ordered dismissed.