Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. ELVIN LEE BEACH, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Beach
Decision Date: 1975-07-18
Docket Number: No. 28,831
Citation: 23 C.M.A. 480
Volume: 23
Reporter: Decisions of the United States Court of Military Appeals
Court: United States Court of Military Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee v ELVIN LEE BEACH, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
Judges: Senior Judge Ferguson concurs.
Pages: 480–486

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v ELVIN LEE BEACH, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant
No. 28,831
July 18, 1975
Major D. A. Higley, USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were Captain T. O. Tottenham, USMCR, and Lieutenant Walter A. Smith, Jr., JAGC, USNR.
Lieutenant Mark D. Wigder, JAGC, USNR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were Lieutenant Colonel P. N Kress, USMC, and Lieutenant Commander Harvey E. Little, JAGC, USN.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Fletcher, Chief Judge:
In this case, the accused complains of the 143-day delay in bringing him to trial, relying on our decision in United States v Burton, 21 USCMA 112, 44 CMR 166 (1971). A statement of the facts is unnecessary. Our examination of the record, the arguments in the briefs, and the contentions made on oral argument and reargument cause us to conclude that the Government has not established the existence of "really extraordinary circumstances beyond such normal problems as . . . [are] caused by difficulties usually encountered in the processing of charges for trial." United States v Marshall, 22 USCMA 431, 435, 47 CMR 409, 413 (1973). As no unusual factors were presented in this case, the Court of Military Review erred in affirming the findings and sentence.
The decision of the United States Navy Court of Military Review is reversed. The Charge and its specification are ordered dismissed.
Senior Judge Ferguson concurs.
The actual delay amounted to 159 days, but appellate defense counsel concede the Government did not bear sole responsibility for the delay exceeding 143 days.
While not necessary to the disposition of this case, we are concerned with the staff judge advocate's destruction of the investigating officer's request for a sanity examination which constituted a part of the official proceedings in this case. See Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Rev.), para. 121; ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 1-5, DR 1-102(A)(5).