National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

CAAFlog

Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

9/25/2023

 

United States v. Cabuhut,
__ M.J. ___ (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2023) (en banc)

As an introduction to a guest post, here is a statement of the case.
​The MJA convicted Appellant of four specifications of sexual abuse of a child under the age of 16 years on divers occasions; one specification of making an indecent recording on divers occasions; one specification of obstruction of justice; and five specifications of viewing or possessing child pornography on divers occasions.

The MJ sentenced the Appellant to ​a DD, 30 years, RiR to E-1. Appellant raised three issues on appeal: (1) the MJ abused his discretion by accepting Appellant’s guilty plea to sexual abuse of a child by indecent conduct done in the “presence” of that child without defining “presence” to mean the child had to be aware of the indecent conduct; (2) legal and factual insufficiency to one specification; and (3) sentence inappropriateness.

AFCCA ordered oral argument on three additional issues relating to Appellant’s assignments of error and an additional issue, not raised by Appellant, that was identified during this court’s Article 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(d), review of facially unreasonable appellate delay.

AFCCA found Appellant’s convictions both legally and factually sufficient, and no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. And overruled United States v. Burkhart, 72 M.J. 590 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2013).

Findings and sentence affirmed.
AFCCA revisited the question of whether the offense of sexual abuse of a child by committing indecent conduct “in the presence of a child” requires the child be aware of the indecent conduct.  In a rare en banc opinion, AFCCA overruled a 2013 opinion and held that the child does not have to be aware of the indecent conduct to constitute a violation of Article 120b by committing indecent conduct in the presence of a child.  Two of the ten judges dissented.

In early 2022, CAAF reviewed this same issue in United States v. Schmidt, 82 M.J. 68 (C.A.A.F. 2022) but a majority of the judges could not agree on whether the awareness of the child was required. The AFCCA decision in Cabuhat now leaves a 2-1 circuit split, with the Army CCA being the only service to still require awareness of the child to be required as part of the definition of “in the presence of a child.”  United States v. Gould, 2014 CCA LEXIS 694, at *2 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 16 Sep. 2014) (unpub. op.), rev’d in part on other grounds, 75 M.J. 22 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (mem.); United States v. Tabor, 82 M.J. 637 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App.  2022) (en banc), rev. denied, 82 M.J. 64 (C.A.A.F. 2022) (holding that a “lewd act” defined by Article 120b, UCMJ, does not require the child be aware of the indecent act).  It will be interesting to see if CAAF agrees to review the Cabuhat case and settle the service court split

In analyzing the question of whether the awareness of the child is required to prove “in the presence of a child” AFCCA found the plain meaning was clear and unambiguous: “presence” simply means physical proximity to the offender.  The Air Force Court then turned its prior holding in Burkhart and found that opinion was “poorly reasoned.” AFCCA noted Chief Judge Ohlson’s concurring opinion in Schmidt and the fact that the military judge’s benchbook did not incorporate the holding from Burkhart that the child awareness was a requirement to find the lewd act was committed in the presence of a child.  Eight judges of the en banc panel were persuaded by the reasoning of Chief Judge Ohlson’s concurring opinion in Schmidt and the more recent NMCCA opinion in Tabor and overruled Burkhart. 

AFCCA also reviewed some of the findings for factual sufficiency and affirmed the findings.  The Court also reviewed the sentence and found it was appropriate.

By A. Guessed.

If you have a post to blog, send it along to [email protected], that way, anonymity is assured.


Comments are closed.
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Co-editors:
    Phil Cave
    Brenner Fissell
    Links

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal
    -2025 Ops
    ​
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    JRAP
    JRTP


    UCMJ

    Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.)
    ​
    ​
    MCM 2024
    ​
    MCM 2023

    MCM 2019
    MCM 2016
    MCM 2012
    MCM 1995

    ​
    UMCJ History

    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    J. App. Prac. & Pro.

    Archives

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly