Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. NATHAN R. HALL, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Hall
Decision Date: 1961-04-28
Docket Number: No. 14,680
Citation: 12 C.M.A. 374
Volume: 12
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 NATHAN R. HALL, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
Judges: Judge Latimer concurs.
Pages: 374–376

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v NATHAN R. HALL, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
12 USCMA 374, 30 CMR 374
No. 14,680
Decided April 28, 1961
Major Quincey W. Tucker, Jr., argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was Colonel James L. Kilgore.
Lieutenant Colonel Simpson M. Woolf argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were Colonel Merlin W. Baker and Major John C. Wiley.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:
A general court-martial convicted the accused of larceny and housebreaking, in violation of Articles 121 and 130, Uniform Code of Military Justice, respectively, 10 USC § 921, 930. The specification of the latter offense alleges that the accused unlawfully entered "a railroad box car" of the British Railways with intent to commit larceny therein. On this appeal, the accused contends the specification does not allege an offense in violation of Article 130 because a railroad boxcar is not a "structure" as that word is used in the article.
In United States v Taylor, 12 USCMA 44, 30 CMR 44, the Court held that a large cargo-carrying aircraft was not a structure within the meaning of Article 130. In its opinion, the Court contrasted the aircraft with a railway car, and pointed out that Congress did not intend the two to be "members of the same class." Implicit in the discussion is the conclusion that a railroad freight car is, as the Manual for Courts-Martial indicates, a "structure" within Article 130. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 209, page 375. The specification is, therefore, legally sufficient. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.
Judge Latimer concurs.