# United States v. Reed

> Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces · August 31, 2000 · 54 M.J. 37

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9836751

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Rockey J. REED, Captain, U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
- **Decided:** August 31, 2000
- **Citations:** 54 M.J. 37; 2000 CAAF LEXIS 956; 2000 WL 1239494
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cox
- **Judges:** Crawford, Sullivan, Cox
- **Cited by:** 499 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by United States v. Dawson, 65 M.J. 848 (2007).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9836751

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding “nothing in the opinion that would lead one to conclude that the lower court did not give . . . appellant’s assignment[] of error careful consideration”
- finding “nothing in the opinion that would lead one to conclude that the lower court did not give ... appellant’s assignment ] of error careful consideration”
- explaining that both factual and legal sufficiency in contested courts-martial cases are measured against the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard
- stating matters not introduced at trial are outside the record and may not be considered for factual or legal sufficiency on appeal

## Opinion text

COX, Senior Judge
(dissenting):
As the majority notes, there is strong circumstantial evidence to support a belief that appellant received a modem, took it, then set up an elaborate scheme to cover up his theft. However, in order to convict a servicemember of an offense, it is axiomatic that the Government must prove each and every element of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
The elements of larceny are set out in Article 121, UCMJ, 10 USC § 921 . Foremost among them is that the Government must prove that the accused took property “from the possession of the owner.” There is no proof in the record, direct or circumstantial, that the Government was ever in possession of “the modem” allegedly stolen by appellant. Accordingly, no matter how suspicious the circumstances, the Government’s proof of a larceny fails.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9836751. Public record. Not legal advice.