## Facts

- Robert L. Warren, Jr., a servicemember, was participating in a field exercise when his unit was forming up to move into the field.
- Warren refused to get out of bed and prepare to move.
- Sergeant Schnell, the acting platoon sergeant, told Warren to get up; when Warren did not respond, Schnell shook Warren’s foot and attempted to pull him out of the tent.
- Warren became angry and threatened Schnell.
- Lieutenant Ferriole, the platoon commander, intervened and took Warren aside.
- Ferriole spoke to Warren in an effort to calm the situation, telling him to calm down, relax, take it easy for a minute, and to “settle down and be quiet.”
- Warren did not comply; instead, he continued to act aggressively and threatened Ferriole and others.
- At a special court-martial, Warren was convicted of multiple offenses, including willfully disobeying Ferriole’s lawful order to “settle down and be quiet,” charged as a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
- The United States Navy Court of Military Review affirmed the conviction.
- Warren appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient because Ferriole’s statement was not an “order” but merely advice or counseling.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Lt. Ferriole’s statement directing Warren to “settle down and be quiet,” though phrased in calming terms, constituted a lawful order under the UCMJ.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove Warren willfully disobeyed that order.

## Decision

- The United States Court of Military Appeals affirmed the decision of the Navy Court of Military Review and upheld Warren’s conviction.
- The court concluded that, in the circumstances, Ferriole’s directive could be treated as a lawful order rather than mere advice.
- The court found the evidence sufficient to support a finding that Warren knowingly and willfully failed to comply.

## Legal Principles

- Whether a superior’s words amount to an order depends on their meaning in the situation, not on the use of formal command language.
- An instruction aimed at restoring immediate discipline and preventing further disruption can be a lawful order when issued by a superior acting within command authority.
- For legal sufficiency, an appellate court asks whether a rational factfinder could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

## Conclusion

United States v. Warren holds that a platoon commander’s informal, de-escalatory direction—such as telling a disruptive servicemember to “settle down and be quiet”—may qualify as a lawful order when the circumstances show it was intended as a command to restore discipline and the accused understood it but chose not to comply.


United States v. Warren, 13 M.J. 160 (1982)