2008 (Transition)
United
States v. Mitchell, 66 M.J. 176 (appellant’s
admissions during the providence
inquiry that he believed the substance he sold was marijuana, but was
later
told that it was not marijuana, established all the elements of
attempted
distribution of marijuana).
United
States v. Roeseler, 55 MJ 286 (attempted
conspiracy to
commit a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a military
offense
under Article 80, UCMJ).
(the offense of attempted conspiracy to murder fictitious persons
did not
require agreement or a shared intent among the expected conspirators
with
respect to the object of the alleged conspiracy; it was appellant’s
belief or
understanding that was critical to establish his guilt of this attempt
offense).
(the military judge’s explanations of a charged conspiracy and a
charged
attempted conspiracy, taken together, were sufficient to inform
appellant that
conspiracy, unlike attempted conspiracy, required that the alleged
conspirators
actually share the same criminal intent or mental state).
(the defense of impossibility of the crime attempted or conspired is
not a
defense to a charge of attempt or conspiracy under military law;
therefore,
because the impossibility of the offenses is not a defense to either
attempt or
conspiracy, it is not a defense to the charge of attempted conspiracy).
(with respect to the offense of attempt under Article 80, an accused
should
be treated in accordance with the facts as he or she supposed them to
be;
"A person who purposely engages in conduct which would constitute an
offense in the attendant circumstances were as that person believed
them to be
is guilty of an attempt" (para. 4c(3), Part IV, MCM, 1984)).
1999
United
States v. Smith, 50 MJ 380 (where accused admits in
providence
inquiry that acts went beyond mere preparation and points to a
particular
action that satisfies himself on this point, it is neither legally nor
logically well-founded to say that actions that may be ambiguous on
this point
fall short of the line “as a matter of law” so as to be substantially
inconsistent with guilty plea).