In Lee, a published opinion, the appellant was convicted, MJA, of indecent conduct and adultery at a Special Court-Martial. He was sentenced 120 days, RiR, and a BCD.
Appellant asserts eight assignments of error [AOE], which we renumber as follows: (1) that the evidence for Specification 1 of the Charge (indecent conduct) is legally and factually insufficient; (2) that the evidence for Specification 2 of the Charge (adultery) is legally and factually insufficient; (3) that the offense of indecent conduct in Specification 1 of the Charge is preempted by Article 120b(c), UCMJ; (4) that the military judge erred when he denied the Defense motion to suppress evidence; (5) that the military judge erred when he ruled that the Defense was not entitled to certain evidence in discovery; (6) that the Entry of Judgment as written is deficient; (7) that the Government committed a discovery violation when it failed to provide the Defense with certain impeachment evidence in discovery; and (8) that the military judge effectively acquitted Appellant of Specification 1 of the Charge when he acquitted him of the word “persuade.”
The court construes the Article 134 charging as an attempt to avoid having to prove an overt act.
We do not find the Government’s attempt to avoid the burden of proving an overt act persuasive for a number of reasons. First, the Government’s argument on appeal ignores concessions already made at trial. In its response to Appellant’s motion for a finding of not guilty of this offense under Rule for Courts-Martial [R.C.M.] 917, the Government did not argue that it was not required to prove an overt act, but instead argued that “the substantial step for an attempt can be satisfied by words alone.” Allowing the Government “to tell the military judge one thing . . . and then . . . assert something else on appeal . . . would go against the general prohibition against taking inconsistent litigation positions.”
On the indecency issue,
On the suppression issue,
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal views and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.