Table Content
Article 128a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes the offense of maiming, which prohibits intentionally causing serious and permanent injury to another person. The provision focuses on acts that disable, disfigure, or destroy a body part or organ, whether through physical force, weapons, or other means. The offense applies to all persons subject to the UCMJ.
Maiming encompasses conduct that results in lasting or irreparable bodily harm. The statute covers injuries such as loss or impairment of a limb, organ, or bodily function, as well as serious disfigurement. Temporary or minor injuries do not meet the statutory threshold.
The offense requires proof that the accused acted with intent to injure and with knowledge that the act would likely result in permanent harm or disfigurement. Recklessness or negligence is insufficient to establish liability under Article 128a. The government must show that the resulting injury was not only intentional but also designed or expected to cause lasting damage.
Any service member subject to the UCMJ may be charged with maiming, regardless of rank or duty status at the time of the conduct. The article applies to injuries inflicted on other service members, civilians, or any person protected under military jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by the individual’s status under the UCMJ, not the victim’s.
Attempts to commit maiming may be charged under Article 80 when the injury does not occur but the accused takes a substantial step toward causing permanent harm. Conspiracy to commit maiming can be prosecuted under Article 81 if two or more persons agree to engage in conduct that would constitute the offense. Accomplice liability is available under Article 77 for individuals who assist, encourage, or otherwise participate in the commission of maiming.
The government must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 128a focuses on serious, permanent injuries intentionally inflicted by the accused, and each component must be established through competent evidence and proper inference.
The mens rea for maiming requires that the accused either specifically intended to cause the type of serious injury that resulted or acted with awareness that the conduct was likely to produce permanent disfigurement or disablement. Mere negligence or recklessness is insufficient.
The actus reus consists of the actual infliction of an injury that results in serious disfigurement or the destruction or disabling of a bodily member or organ. The injury must be more than temporary or minor; it must permanently impair appearance or function.
Statutorily significant terms include “serious disfigurement” and “disablement,” both of which require a lasting or permanent effect on the victim’s body. “Member” and “organ” refer broadly to limbs and functional bodily structures, and the impairment must materially reduce their utility or appearance.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice depends on the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023, are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment model, while offenses on or after that date are sentenced under the newer sentencing_category framework established by Executive Order.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 sentencing rules, Article 128a (Maiming) carries a fixed maximum authorized punishment. The maximum punishment includes:
Under this model, the sentencing authority could impose any lawful sentence up to the stated maximums.
For offenses occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 128a (Maiming) falls within a designated sentencing category under the revised system. Maiming is assigned to a category that authorizes:
Under the sentencing_category system, each offense is placed into a category with a specific confinement range rather than relying solely on a single maximum punishment. The sentencing authority selects a confinement term within the authorized range for the applicable category. This approach differs from the prior model by providing structured confinement ranges and reducing variability, while still permitting punitive discharges, reductions, and forfeitures when authorized.
Charging decisions under Article 128a are driven primarily by the underlying fact pattern, the course of the investigation, and the discretion exercised by commanders and prosecutors. Cases tend to move forward when the injuries reflect permanent disfigurement or long-term impairment and when investigators can clearly document the accused’s intent or reckless conduct leading to the injury.
In practice, maiming charges arise from situations where significant bodily harm results from interpersonal violence or dangerous misconduct. Typical scenarios include:
Article 128a is often paired with other offenses to capture the full scope of the conduct. Common co-charges include:
Maiming allegations usually begin with immediate medical reporting, witness statements, or command notification after an injury that appears serious or permanent. Law-enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS typically take lead roles when the injury occurs under suspicious or violent circumstances. Command-directed inquiries may occur in parallel, especially when the incident arises within the unit environment. Investigators focus on documenting the nature of the injury, intent, weapon involvement, and any aggravating factors.
Prosecutors often use overlapping statutes to preserve alternative theories of liability, particularly when the evidence may support varying degrees of intent or recklessness. Charge-stacking is common in these cases, allowing factfinders to consider both the severe injury element of maiming and lesser-included offenses such as aggravated assault. This approach ensures that a viable charge remains even if proof of permanent disfigurement or specific intent is contested.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 128a, Maiming, often hinge on the government’s ability to establish each statutory element with sufficient evidence. Litigated issues commonly involve fact-specific disputes, the reliability of witness accounts, and the proper application of evidentiary and interpretive rules. Courts frequently evaluate how the statutory framework applies to the circumstances surrounding the alleged conduct.
Challenges to specific elements of Article 128a typically focus on whether the government has demonstrated a qualifying injury and whether the alleged act caused that injury. Disputes may arise over the severity, permanence, or disfiguring nature of the harm, especially when medical evidence is complex or when injuries evolve over time. Causation can also be contested, particularly when multiple potential sources of injury exist or when expert testimony offers competing explanations. These issues often require detailed evaluation of medical records, forensic analyses, and the temporal relationship between the accused’s conduct and the resulting condition.
The mental state associated with maiming is frequently litigated. Courts may need to determine whether the accused acted intentionally, knowingly, or with another form of culpability specified in the statute. Disputes often arise when conduct could support multiple inferences, such as whether an act was deliberate or merely reckless. The accused’s statements, the surrounding circumstances, and any prior interactions between the parties may become relevant to assessing mental state. Because mens rea can determine whether the charged offense is legally sustainable, it forms a central part of many Article 128a analyses.
Witness credibility often plays a significant role in maiming cases, especially when accounts differ regarding how an injury occurred. Inconsistencies among witness statements, the complainant’s recollections, or investigators’ reports may affect how fact-finders interpret key events. Physical evidence may corroborate or contradict testimonial accounts, and courts frequently consider the coherence and reliability of each source of information. These credibility questions typically arise without resolving underlying factual disputes at the preliminary stages.
Evidentiary challenges in Article 128a cases often involve the admissibility of statements made by the accused, the collection of physical or forensic evidence, and digital communications that may reflect intent or context. Suppression issues can arise from questions about the legality of searches, the adequacy of rights advisements, or the chain of custody for medical or forensic materials. Courts must ensure that evidence satisfies applicable rules before it is presented to fact-finders.
Legal disputes sometimes involve interpreting statutory terms such as “serious disfigurement,” “serious bodily injury,” or related definitions that influence the scope of Article 128a. Ambiguities in cross-referenced provisions or legislative history may require judicial clarification. These questions typically focus on the statute’s text and its application to specific factual scenarios.
For broader context on violent offenses involving serious bodily harm, see the overview of assault and aggravated assault under Article 128.
Charges for maiming often accompany Article 118 offenses involving intent to kill or cause great bodily harm.
In cases involving life-threatening injuries without intent to kill, prosecutors may also consider Article 119 manslaughter-related charges.
Maiming allegations may be paired with reckless endangerment involving weapons under Article 114 when the conduct involves substantial risk to others.
For guidance on defending major injury cases at court-martial, review the firm’s court-martial defense resources.
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise from a conviction independently of any sentence imposed by a court-martial. These consequences typically stem from military regulations, federal law, or policies of other agencies and may continue to affect a service member after adjudged punishment has been completed.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 128a: Maiming may influence various administrative determinations within a service member’s career. Possible outcomes include:
Because maiming involves serious bodily harm, a conviction may raise concerns regarding judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. This can affect eligibility for security clearances, continued access to classified information, or assignment to positions requiring such access. Post-service employment in fields that rely on clearance eligibility, government contracting, or law enforcement may also be affected.
Article 128a offenses generally do not trigger sex offender registration, as registration is tied to specific qualifying sexual offenses under federal and state law. However, other reporting or tracking requirements may apply depending on the circumstances of the offense and jurisdictional rules.
The conduct underlying a maiming conviction may also violate federal or state criminal laws, creating the possibility of separate civilian prosecution. Additionally, victims may pursue civil claims for damages resulting from the injury.
For non-citizen or naturalized service members, a conviction for a serious violent offense may affect immigration status, admissibility determinations, or future naturalization efforts under applicable immigration laws.
In UCMJ Article 128a maiming investigations, early decisions during the investigative phase often influence the outcome of a case long before charges are preferred. Actions taken at this stage can affect how evidence is viewed, how statements are interpreted, and how the command frames the underlying incident.
Military investigators typically collect evidence immediately after an incident, including statements, medical documentation, digital records, and physical items. Early legal involvement helps ensure that a service member understands how this evidence may be used and how it should be preserved or contextualized. Counsel, including civilian military defense lawyers, can help safeguard against misinterpretation of early statements or incomplete documentation.
Initial interviews with command representatives or law_enforcement agents often occur before a service member fully understands the nature of the allegations. Without guidance, a member may provide incomplete or overly broad statements, waive rights unintentionally, or answer questions beyond the intended scope. These early interactions can shape investigators’ conclusions and may be difficult to correct later.
Command-directed inquiries, safety investigations, and administrative reviews may proceed even when criminal charges have not been preferred. Information gathered in these processes can influence administrative decisions, duty status, or future disciplinary actions. Early decisions about participation or documentation can affect how these parallel inquiries unfold.
Choices made early in the process—such as consenting to searches, providing written statements, or responding to administrative questionnaires—can have lasting effects throughout a court-martial or subsequent administrative proceedings. These decisions may impact evidentiary rulings, credibility assessments, and the overall trajectory of the case.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that represents service members worldwide in cases arising under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending clients facing courts-martial, investigations, and administrative actions, and its attorneys have extensive experience navigating the military justice system and the unique demands associated with serious UCMJ allegations.
If you are facing a military investigation or court-martial involving UCMJ Article 128a, Gonzalez & Waddington can discuss your situation and outline the available legal options. Contact the firm to request a confidential consultation and learn more about how experienced civilian military defense counsel can assist you in navigating the military justice process.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 128a: Maiming cover?
A: UCMJ Article 128a addresses intentionally inflicting serious, permanent injury on another person, including acts that disfigure, disable, or permanently harm bodily function. The offense requires proof that the accused acted with intent to cause such injury or with knowledge that the act was likely to result in that harm. The article applies to service members regardless of location and covers actions occurring both on and off duty.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 128a: Maiming?
A: The maximum punishment for maiming under Article 128a can include a lengthy term of confinement, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The exact punishment depends on the facts proven at court-martial, including the nature of the injury, the accused’s intent, and any aggravating or mitigating factors presented during sentencing.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. A service member may face administrative separation based solely on substantiated misconduct, even if the allegation does not result in court-martial charges or a conviction. Commanders may initiate administrative action if they determine that the underlying conduct is inconsistent with military standards. These actions rely on a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial and can occur in parallel with, or independent of, other investigative processes.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are entitled to free military defense counsel, but some choose to hire a civilian attorney for additional support. A civilian lawyer can provide independent guidance, assist during interviews, and help evaluate the evidence. The decision to retain civilian counsel depends on the complexity of the case, the severity of potential consequences, and personal preference. It is not a requirement but may offer strategic advantages in some circumstances.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, for example, through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Depending on the severity of the conduct and the evidence available, commands may choose administrative measures or nonjudicial punishment instead of a court-martial. However, maiming allegations often involve significant injury, which can make court-martial proceedings more likely. Ultimately, the command, in consultation with legal advisors, determines the most appropriate forum based on the facts, the seriousness of the incident, and the needs of the service.
Q: Which investigative agencies typically handle maiming allegations under the UCMJ?
A: Investigations into potential maiming offenses are usually handled by military criminal investigative organizations such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch. These agencies gather physical evidence, interview witnesses, and evaluate medical documentation related to the alleged injury. Their findings help commanders and legal authorities determine whether the conduct meets the elements of the offense and whether administrative or judicial action is appropriate.
To better understand the Articles of the UCMJ and how military law works in practice, you can review the UCMJ and related authorities here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. For additional official guidance, visit the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps website at jag.navy.mil.
A renowned military criminal defense attorney and best-selling author, Michael Waddington defends clients worldwide in serious cases and trains lawyers in advanced cross-examination. He is frequently featured by major media outlets like CNN and 60 Minutes.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a top military and civilian defense attorney who has handled high-profile sexual assault, violent crime, and war-crimes cases globally. Her work is widely recognized by media outlets including 60 Minutes and ABC’s Nightline.
