Appellant contends that the MJ erred when he allowed LV to discuss an uncharged offense in her unsworn statement to the military judge. Specifically, Appellant argues that LV’s unsworn statement was focused on threatening comments he made to her after the last incident that were not charged, and additionally, that the threatening comments were not tied to the offenses to which Appellant pleaded guilty.
. . .
LV’s unsworn statement included comments she attributed as threats he directed at her after the charged conduct. LV’s unsworn statement did not contain the word “threat,” nor did she at any point ask the military judge to punish Appellant for threating her the direct physical pain the assaults caused, and the emotional, psychological and financial fall-out that she experienced post-assault. Part of the social and psychological pain included Appellant’s behavior towards her in the days immediately following the assaults. As a direct result of the assaults, LV tried to end her relationship with Appellant, who responded by continuing his controlling behavior towards her and prolonging her psychological harm. Therefore, we find that the victim’s description of the impact in this case was closely related to the charged offenses, and thus was proper victim impact material, as it pertained to the psychological impact she experienced following the assault.

Trial counsel then argued:

     [LV] stood before you today and told you that although the physical pain from her assault diminished that she still suffered extreme emotional trauma. She was forced to leave her life in Wichita Falls because [Appellant] was making threats against her, and she feared for her own safety. She lost her job, she lost her friends, she lost her school, and most importantly she lost her sense of security. And why? Because that day she chose to focus on her schoolwork as opposed to showering [Appellant] with the undivided attention that he required at the exact moment that he required it.

At the close of trial counsel’s argument, she discussed the need for the sentence to protect society from Appellant. She stated that “6 months’ confinement is the most appropriate punishment when considering the protection of society, especially given the threats that were made here. It would provide the victims with a sense of psychological well-being to know that [Appellant] can’t cause any more harm while he’s in jail.”

Cheers, Phil Cave

The record of trial in Appellant’s case is returned to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, for correction under R.C.M. 1112(d) to account for the missing audio of the closed session of court, missing Appellate Exhibit VI, and any other portion of the record that is determined to be missing or defective hereafter, after consultation with the parties.

​The record of trial in Appellant’s case is returned to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, for correction under R.C.M. 1112(d) to account for the complete and correct version of Prosecution Exhibit 9, complete version of Appellate Exhibit LIX, and any other portion of the record that is determined to be missing or defective hereafter, after consultation with the parties.

​Requiring a search authorization to be limited to seizing evidence of only a specific crime seems inconsistent with established caselaw. An authorization to search a residence for a missing person allows the investigators to look anywhere in the residence that a person could be hidden, but allows them to seize any evidence of any crime that they find as long as they find that evidence in a place that a person could be (ie in a closet, not a desk drawer). This ruling is basically saying 'ignore the corpses of dead children, you are only allowed to seize evidence of drug possession' This is a huge change.