Case: UNITED STATES, Appellee v DEAN W. DAVAULT, Technical Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
Abbreviation: United States v. Davault
Decision Date: 1959-07-24
Docket Number: No. 12,945
Citation: 10 C.M.A. 551
Volume: 10
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 DEAN W. DAVAULT, Technical Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
Judges: Chief Judge QUINH concurs.
Pages: 551–552

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee v DEAN W. DAVAULT, Technical Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant
10 USCMA 551, 28 CMR 117
No. 12,945
Decided July 24, 1959
Lieutenant Colonel James L. Kilgore and Captain Norman K. Hogue were on the brief for Appellant, Accused,
Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels, Lieutenant Colonel Francis R. Co'ogan, and Major Timothy G. O’Shea were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court
GEORGE W. LatimeR, Judge:
Accused stands convicted of desertion, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885, and sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for two years. We granted his petition for review on a single issue relating to the propriety of the law officer's instructions.
In his charge to the members of the court-martial, the law officer included the instruction which we considered in United States v Simpson, 10 USCMA 543, 28 CMR 109; United States v Smith, 10 USCMA 549, 28 CMR 115; United States v Blackwell, 10 USCMA 550, 28 CMR 116; United States v Tisdall, 10 USCMA 553, 28 CMR 119; and United States v Shomler, 10 USCMA 555, 28 CMR 121, all decided this date. As we there indicated, the law officer erred in so instructing. The prosecution's evidence, -however, was uncontroverted and, taking the instructions by their four corners, we are sure that no reasonable person could be misled and that the court members were provided with a correct measuring rod in assessing the evidence. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the above-cited cases, we conclude there is no fair risk that accused was harmed by the error.
The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
Chief Judge QUINH concurs.