Argument Preview: Whether going to his place (and not hers) was kidnapping, in United States v. Acevedo
Whether the evidence is legally insufficient to support a charge of kidnapping by inveiglement.
Staff Sergeant (E-6) Acevedo was convicted by a general court-martial composed of members with enlisted representation of kidnapping Private (E-2) AM in violation of Article 134. Acevedo was acquitted of other offenses, including offenses related to sexual acts with AM that occurred after the alleged kidnapping. The Army CCA affirmed the findings and sentence without issuing a written opinion.
The alleged kidnapping occurred after Acevedo, AM, and others were drinking at an off-base bar. AM was 19 years-old at the time, and she wanted to leave the bar with a civilian (who she eventually married). Acevedo and a Sergeant didn’t allow AM to leave the bar with the civilian. Instead, they insisted on calling a cab to take AM back to base. AM got into the cab, Acevedo followed, Acevedo gave the driver his address, and the cab took them to Acevedo’s apartment where Acevedo and AM had sex. The following morning Acevedo gave AM $20 to pay for a cab ride back to base and told her to keep the encounter secret. Later, when he was questioned by law enforcement, Acevedo falsely denied that AM went to his residence that night.
(Updated) Recent CAAF docket activitity: A (likely doomed) certification about the proper victim of a larceny, new Hills & Hukill trailers, a Confrontation Clause challenge to Mil. R. Evid. 513, kidnapping by inveiglement, and whether members need an instruction on the meaning of incapable
Update: While I initially noted five grants of review, I only wrote about four. I eventually realized that I failed in counting to five and now update this post to include the fifth grant (in Bailey).
Some interesting cases recently joined CAAF’s docket, with a certification and five grants of review.