Criminal Law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Criminal Law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
This domain tests substantive military criminal law and procedure: punitive articles and their elements, jurisdiction, limitations, Article 31 rights, and defenses. Questions often ask whether the facts meet each element, not whether the conduct was wrong in a general sense.
Punitive articles and elements
Key offenses include Article 118 murder (unlawful killing with malice aforethought), Article 119 manslaughter, Article 120 sexual assault, Article 121 larceny and wrongful appropriation, Article 122 robbery, Article 128 assault, Article 129 burglary, and Article 134 general disorders. Larceny requires a wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding of another's property with intent permanently to deprive. Wrongful appropriation requires intent temporarily to deprive.
Jurisdiction and limitations
Courts-martial jurisdiction generally reaches active-duty members and certain others. Article 43 sets a five-year limitations period for most offenses, with no limitation for murder, rape, sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, forcible sodomy, and child pornography offenses. Jurisdiction is separate from whether a commander prefers charges.
Article 31 and confessions
Article 31(b) requires a person subject to the UCMJ who questions a suspect to warn of the nature of the accusation, the right to remain silent, and the right to counsel. It applies even when the questioning is not custodial. Miranda applies to custodial interrogation by law enforcement. A waiver must be voluntary under the totality of the circumstances; promises, threats, and coercion can suppress a statement.
Defenses
Common defenses include alibi, self-defense, defense of others, mistake of fact, duress, involuntary intoxication, lack of mental responsibility, and obedience to a lawful order. Self-defense requires a reasonable belief of imminent unlawful force, proportionality, and that the accused was not the aggressor.
Worked example
A soldier takes a roommate's laptop without permission, uses it for a week, and returns it. The facts support wrongful appropriation, not larceny, because there is no intent permanently to deprive. If the soldier pawned it and intended to keep the money, the analysis shifts to larceny. The Article 121 elements and the stated intent control the charge.
Traps that cost marks
Forgetting the intent element. Treating nonjudicial punishment as a criminal conviction. Confusing Article 31 with Miranda. Missing wrongfulness. Ignoring the statute of limitations. Assuming every wrong is a crime under Article 134.