This appears to be the Week of the Highly Factually Specific CAAF Opinion. Today CAAF announced its decision in United States v. Trew, __ M.J. __, 09-0414/NA (C.A.A.F. Feb. 25, 2010). CAAF reversed the Navy-Marine Corps Court, holding that the military judge’s statement that she found the accused guilty of “the one occasion” without further clarification precluded the CCA from knowing what act was the subject of conviction and what act was the subject of acquittal, thus requiring reversal of the findings and sentence and dismissal of the charge. In this case, it was a question from the trial counsel that led to the military judge’s statement undermining her previous announcement of findings. And CAAF once again declined to return the case to the military judge for possible clarification, concluding that to do so would offend R.C.M. 1102(c)(1)’s prohibition against post-trial sessions “for reconsideration of a finding of not guilty to any specification, or a ruling which amounts to a finding of not guilty.”
Judge Erdmann wrote the opinion of the court. Judge Stucky concurred in the result, opining that assault consummated by a battery isn’t an LIO of indecent acts with a child. The majority declined to address the LIO issue. Trew, slip op. at 3 n.2.