Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces· 5/2/2017

United States v. Hukill

Citations

76 M.J. 219
2017 CAAF LEXIS 305
2017 WL 1733882

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

evaluating preserved Hills error under Chapman’s “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” rubric
“where such 18 constitutional error exists, the Government must ‘prove there was no reasonable possibility 19 that the error contributed to [the] verdict.’”
“The same constitutional concerns exist if, in a military judge-alone trial, a military judge uses charged conduct as propensity evidence under M.R.E. 413.”
“The referenced instruction was not given as Hukill was ultimately tried by military judge alone, but it does reflect the military judge’s understanding of the law at the time.”
“Whether considered by members or a military judge, evidence of a charged and contested offense, of which an accused is presumed innocent, cannot be used as propensity evidence in support of a companion charged offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Erdmann, Stucky, Ryan, Ohlson, Sparks

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

35 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named United States v. Hukill

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.