Court Opinion

ID: 9446160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:48:17.748715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:33.341329
License: Public Domain

FAHY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
There is a serious question whether the Court which convicted appellant of the capital offense of premedilated murder was adequately instructed on thenoncapital offense of unpremeditated murder. The question is serious because of evidence before the court-martial that, appellant was highly intoxicated at the-time of the homicide and might not have-had the specific intent essential to premeditated murder.1 See the dissenting opinion of Judge Brosman of the United States Court of Military Appeals. 2 U.S. C.M.A. at 427. The majority opinion of the Court of Military Appeals, however, in its review of the instructions which were given leads me to conclude-that the inadequacy which existed was. not so grave as to have deprived appellant of due process of law or of any other constitutional right, or to have deprived the court-martial of jurisdiction. This civil court accordingly cannot on collateral attack disturb the judgment of the-military judicial authorities. See Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 73 S.Ct. 1045, 97 L.Ed. 1508. Such consideration as might, now be given to the question of appellant’s intoxication and the instructions relevant thereto is for the executive branch of the Government.

. 92d Article of War, 62 Stat. 640 (1948), 10 U.S.C. § 1564 (1946 ed. Supp. IV, 1951), now substantially Art. 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 918 (Supp. V, 1958).