Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

In Csiti, CAAF granted three issues and has unanimously agreed on the answers.

I. Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has statutory authority to decide whether a conviction is factually sufficient.

II. Whether Appellant’s conviction for sexual assault is factually and legally insufficient because [the victim] was capable of consenting—and did consent—to sexual activity with Appellant.

​III. Whether the lower court erroneously interpreted and applied the amended factual sufficiency standard under Article 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ, [10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(1)(B) (Supp. II 2019-2021)].

For reasons explained below, we hold that this Court does not have statutory authority to review the factual sufficiency of the evidence. We also hold that the evidence is legally sufficient. We further hold that any misconception by the AFCCA about the amended standards applicable to its factual sufficiency review was harmless. We therefore affirm the AFCCA’s decision.

We invite a guest post (forwarded to [email protected]).