Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Jasan Williams.

An “enlisted” panel convicted him of digital penetration while the victim was asleep and he was sentenced to 18 months, RiR, and a DD. His assignments of error are related to the findings.

(1) Appellant was acquitted when the panel initially announced he was not guilty of the essential intent element for both specifications of the Charge.

(2) The military judge erred after the members initially announced findings by providing the members a new findings worksheet with suggested language that would result in a conviction and instructing them to return to the deliberation room and then re-announce findings.
(3) The military judge improperly impeached the original findings announced by the members.

On issues, one and two, while “finding ambiguity in the original announcement followed by proper instruction to clarify the ambiguity, [they are] render[ed] moot."

The court finds no error with the remaining AOE. Interestingly, the military judge used a “new” findings worksheet for the members to clarify their findings and to create a useful record for appellate review. Slip op. at 7. See, United States v. Reyes-Lesmes, Slip op. at 5 n. 4.

​Bottom line, “the first announcement of findings did not amount to an acquittal [and were ambiguous, and], merely contained an error in the announcement, which was corrected in the second announcement.

United States v. Ramento.

An “enlisted” panel convicted Appellant of six specifications of violating UCMJ art. 120, and sentenced him to one year and six months, $1733.00 x 18, and a DD. The military judge found three of the specifications to be unreasonably multiplicious and conditionally dismissed them. The Appellant’s issues were factual and legal sufficiency.
​
“There is also ample evidence that Appellant committed this conduct when he knew or reasonably should have known LS2 India was asleep.” Affirmed.