Chief Judge Baker writes for the court, with Judge Stucky dissenting. Opinion here.
. . . Appellant’s statements were appropriately determined to be false, but were not official. Appellant did not make the statements in the line of duty. He did not disobey a specific order to provide for his family, and the statements do not bear a clear and direct relationship to his official duties. Furthermore, while Appellant’s statements ultimately affected on-base persons performing official military functions, Appellant made the statements to civilian law enforcement officials who were not conducting any military function at the time the statements were made. When Appellant made the statements, the CSPD detectives were not operating a joint investigation with military officials or performing any other military functions. Thus, the present facts do not fall within the meaning of an official statement for the purposes of Article 107, UCMJ.
Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the findings of guilty of making false official statements under Charge I.
Slip op. at 13. Judge Stucky writes:
I conclude that Congress intended Article 107 to criminalize false statements made to civilian law enforcement agents acting in their official capacity. I would therefore affirm the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
Diss. op. at 4. More to follow.
• Appellant’s supplemental brief to ACCA
• Appellee’s (government) brief to ACCA
• ACCA opinion
• Blog post: Will CAAF extend its oral argument calendar?
• Blog post: Argument preview
• Oral argument audio
• CAAF opinion
• Blog post: CAAF reverses in Spicer