|Cases heard at oral argument this term:||42|
|Argued cases decided by authored decision:||25|
|Argued cases decided per curiam or by summary disposition:||1|
|Argued cases pending decision:||16|
|Other cases decided by authored decision:||0|
Note: This list may include cases set for argument in the near future.
Argued Cases (chronological by date of oral argument):
United States v. Commisso, No. 16-0555/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, December 6, 2016): The granted issues asked whether the military judge erred in denying a post-trial motion for a mistrial after three members failed to disclose prior knowledge of the case.
United States v. Shea, No. 16-0530/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, January 11, 2017): Two issues that question the composition of the three-judge panel of the Air Force CCA that reassessed the appellant’s sentence, but the issues are based on events in a completely separate court-martial that ended after a three-judge panel of the AFCCA reversed a conviction for forcible sodomy for factual insufficiency and then the Air Force Appellate Government Division unsuccessfully moved to disqualify one of those three judges on the basis that she might appear to be biased in favor of the Government.
United States v. Oliver, No. 16-0484/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, February 7, 2017): CAAF will determine whether wrongful sexual contact was a lesser-included offense of abusive sexual contact under the 2007-2012 version of Article 120.
United States v. Richards, No. 16-0727/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, March 15, 2017): On one issue challenges the validity of a search authorization as overbroad based on the lack of a temporal requirement for a search of digital media.
United States v. Gurczynski, No. 17-0139/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, March 15, 2017): A single issue continues an interlocutory Government appeal of a military judge’s ruling suppressing evidence.
United States v. Reese, No. 17-0028/CG (CAAFlog case page) (argued Thursday, March 16, 2017): Two issues challenge the wording of the charges; the first based on a change made during the trial and the second based on the omission of words of criminality from a specification under Article 134.
United States v. Hendrix, No. 16-0731/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Thursday, March 16, 2017): Two issues challenge the admission of a voice lineup.
United States v. Mitchell, No. 17-0153/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, April 4, 2017): The case continues a prosecution appeal under Article 62 of a military judge’s ruling that suppressed the contents of Sergeant (E-5) Mitchell’s cell phone because military investigators continued to question him after he requested an attorney and that questioning led to Mitchell decrypting the device for the investigators. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the military judge’s suppression ruling, and the Judge Advocate General of the Army certified three issues to CAAF.
United States v. Herrmann, No. 16-0599/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, April 5, 2017): One issue challenges the legal sufficiency of the appellant’s conviction of reckless endangerment in violation of Article 134 for the pencil packing of parachutes, which is when a parachute is not properly packed or inspected but is fraudulently reported as being properly packed and inspected.
United States v. Ramos, No. 17-0143/CG (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, April 25, 2017): CAAF is reviewing whether military investigators were required to give an Article 31(b) warning before questioning the appellant about threats to his wife’s recreational marijuana business activities.
United States v. Brantley, No.17-0055/AR (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, April 25, 2017): CAAF is reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence that an alleged victim was unaware of a sexual touching in a case where the prosecution’s argument focused on the alleged victim’s impairment.
United States v. Forrester, No. 17-0049/MC (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, April 25, 2017): A single issue questions whether four separate convictions of possession of child pornography is an unreasonable multiplication of charges considering that all four convictions are based on the same images (maintained on four separate mediums).
United States v. Claxton, No. 17-0148/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, May 9, 2017): A Hills trailer that also involves the prosecution’s failure to disclose that two of its witnesses were also undercover informants for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). The Air Force CCA found error in both issues, but it concluded that both errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Carter, Nos. 17-0079/AF & 17-0086/AF (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, May 9, 2017): Certified and granted issues question convictions of child endangerment and committing indecent acts with a child, both in violation of Article 134, that were reversed on appeal by the Air Force CCA because the specifications didn’t allege a terminal element, then re-preferred, re-referred, and re-tried, and then reversed again by the CCA (and dismissed with prejudice) in a split decision that found that the CCA’s first reversal did not authorize the second trial.
United States v. Darnall, No. 16-0729/NA (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, May 10, 2017): A single issue challenges the admission of evidence discovered after an apprehension of dubious legitimacy.
United States v. Chikaka, No. 16-0586/MC (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Tuesday, May 23, 2017): In a case involving a Marine Corps recruiter’s improper relationships with prospective applicants, CAAF is reviewing the effect of a presentation given by then-Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Amos known as the Heritage Brief.
Cases with Authored Decisions (chronological by date of decision):
United States v. Dalmazzi, 76 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016) (CAAFlog case page): In a per curiam decision issued eight days after oral argument, CAAF finds that the appellant’s challenge to the participation of a judge of the United States Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR) on the panel of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals that decided her case is moot because the judge had not yet been appointed as a USCMCR judge when the CCA decided the case.
United States v. Wilson, 76 M.J. 4 (C.A.A.F. Jan. 13, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Considering an issue raised personally by the appellant a unanimous CAAF finds that the appellant’s housebreaking conviction involving a fenced motor pool is legally insufficient because “the meaning of a ‘structure’ for the purposes of Article 130, UCMJ, is a more or less permanent constructed edifice, built up of parts purposefully joined together, more or less completely enclosed by walls and covering a space of land, or a building or construction intended to be or used for residence.”
United States v. McClour, 76 M.J. 23 (C.A.A.F. Jan. 24, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): With a short opinion that answers no more than the question presented by the specific facts of this case, CAAF unanimously concludes that it was not plain or obvious error for the military judge to instruct the members that if they were “firmly convinced that the accused is guilty of the offense charged, [they] must find him guilty” (emphasis added).
United States v. Gomez, 76 M.J. 76 (C.A.A.F. Jan. 30, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Reviewing for plain error, and invoking the standard that an error is clear if the judge would be derelict in countenancing it, CAAF denies relief for the prosecution’s sentencing presentation that included questionable testimony from two victims.
United States v. Pabelona, 76 M.J. 9 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 1, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Reviewing the trial counsel’s closing argument for plain error (because the defense did not object during trial), CAAF finds that even if parts of the argument were improper there is no evidence of prejudice because of the weight of the evidence supporting the convictions.
United States v. Sewell, 76 M.J. 14 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 1, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): In an opinion that names the trial counsel but avoids direct criticism of his performance, a majority of CAAF finds that the evidence supporting the convictions is sufficient to overwhelm any impropriety in the trial counsel’s closing argument.
Randolph v. HV and United States, 76 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 2, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Sharply divided, the court narrowly concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to review an interlocutory decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals rendered under the victim-focused Article 6b when the accused seeks such review and regardless of how the accused seeks such review.
United States v. Bowen, 76 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 8, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Concluding that the military judge failed to properly consider the condition of the appellant’s wife when admitting her non-verbal response as an excited utterance, a unanimous CAAF reverses the findings and the decision of the Air Force CCA, authorizing a rehearing.
United States v. Dockery, 76 M.J. 91 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 14, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): The court unanimously concludes that the military judge committed error when he granted the prosecution’s challenge of a member but that the error did not prejudice the appellant’s rights, however two judges express significant discomfort with the prosecution’s challenge.
United States v. Nieto, 76 M.J. 101 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 21, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Considering the validity of a search authorization that was primarily based on military investigators’ experience-based assertions regarding how people use portable electronic devices, a divided CAAF finds that the authorization lacked probable cause and reverses the appellant’s conditional pleas of guilty.
United States v. Rosario, 76 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. Feb. 22, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): A unanimous CAAF affirms the Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s consideration of facts supporting sexual assault allegations that resulted in acquittals in the court’s review of a conviction of sexual harassment, concluding that the facts that form the basis for both acquittals and convictions are permissible considerations during a CCA’s review of convictions.
United States v. Price, 76 M.J. 136 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 3, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): In a short opinion the court unanimously concludes that the military judge did not elicit too much information about the appellant’s misconduct during the plea inquiry.
United States v. Bartee, 76 M.J. 141 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 15, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): A majority concludes that there was no systemic exclusion of court-martial members on the basis of rank despite the fact that the convening order duplicated an earlier order that was found to have systemically excluded.
United States v. Lopez, 76 M.J. 151 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 20, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): The court finds error and prejudice in the testimony of a witness that gave her opinion of the appellant’s guilt of the offense of indecent liberties with a child, and it reverses that conviction. But it finds the similar testimony of a second witness, whose testimony supported a conviction of rape, to be harmless.
United States v. Sager, 76 M.J. 158 (C.A.A.F. Mar. 21, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Reviewing the text of Article 120(b)(2), as incorporated by Article 120(d), CAAF concludes that the language “asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware” creates three separate theories under which an accused may be convicted. The court reverses the decision of the Navy-Marine Corps CCA that found that the language creates only a single theory of criminal liability, and remands the case for further consideration.
United State v. Fetrow, 76 M.J. 181 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): CAAF agrees with the Air Force CCA that evidence admitted under Mil. R. Evid. 414 must: (1) constitute an offense under the UCMJ, federal law, or state law when the uncharged allegation occurred, and (2) be within the categories set forth in the version of M.R.E. 414(d)(2)(A)-(G) in effect at the time of trial. Accordingly, the court affirms the Air Force CCA’s decision that reversed child molestation convictions and a sentence that included confinement for 25 years.
United States v. Ortiz, 76 M.J. 189 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): While the court summarily decided the case on February 9, 2017 (two days after hearing oral argument), CAAF’s April opinion explains that there was no error in the participation of a Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed judge of the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), who is also an Air Force Colonel, on the CCA panel that reviewed the appellant’s case. Ortiz is a replacement for United States v. Dalmazzi, 76 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. Dec. 15, 2016) (CAAFlog case page), which raised similar issues, was resolved on mootness grounds, and is the subject of a petition for certiorari (discussed here).
United States v. Ahern, 76 M.J. 194 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 20, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): The court unanimously finds that appellant’s civilian defense counsel’s affirmative statements that the defense had no objection to admission of appellant’s statements waived any issue regarding the use of the statements under Mil. R. Evid. 304(a)(2) (addressing failure to deny an accusation of wrongdoing).
United States v. Haverty, 76 M.J. 199 (C.A.A.F. Apr. 25, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Considering a single issue that was specified by the court itself, and applying the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), CAAF finds that recklessness is the minimum mens rea (mental state) to sustain a conviction of hazing in violation of Army Regulation 200-20 paragraph 4-20.
United States v. Swift, __ M.J. __, (C.A.A.F. Apr. 26, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): A unanimous CAAF finds that the Army CCA improperly based its review solely by reference to uncharged conduct, remanding for a new review under Article 66(c). The court also concludes that any error in the admission of an uncorroborated confession was waived by both the failure to object and an affirmative statement that the defense had no objection.
United States v. Hukill, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. May 2, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): A short opinion reiterates that charged offenses may not be used as evidence of the accused’s propensity to commit other charged offenses in the same case, regardless of the forum, the number of victims, or whether the allegations are connected. CAAF reverses the decision of the Army CCA that found otherwise, reverses the appellant’s sexual offense convictions, and authorizes a rehearing.
United States v. Davis, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. May 9, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Affirming a published decision of the Army CCA, CAAF unanimously finds that if an accused fails to preserve an instructional error with a timely objection or request, then the error is tested for plain error.
United States v. Erikson, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. May 9, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): A unanimous court finds no error in excluding evidence that the alleged victim made a prior allegation of sexual assault against a different person because the prior allegation was not proven to be false.
United States v. Feliciano, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. May 17, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): Concluding that the defenses of voluntary abandonment and mistake of fact as to consent were not raised by the evidence, a unanimous CAAF finds no error in the omission of an instruction on the former, and no error in the specific wording of the instruction given on the latter. A footnote also distinguishes a special defense from an affirmative defense.
United States v. Boyce, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. May 22, 2017) (CAAFlog case page): A deeply-divided court concludes that the conduct of senior Air Force officials created an appearance of unlawful command influence (UCI) in this case that would cause an objective, disinterested observer with knowledge of all the facts to harbor a significant doubt about the fairness of the court-martial proceedings. As a remedy CAAF sets aside convictions of spousal rape and battery, authorizing a rehearing.
United States v. Tucker, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. May 23, 2017) (CAAFlog case page) (argued on Wednesday, May 10, 2017): With a per curiam opinion issued just thirteen days after oral argument, the court explains that the term neglects in Article 134 does not mean negligence, rejecting the published decision of the Army CCA that found that the term states a negligence standard.