Opinion Analysis: Conduct while not subject to the UCMJ admissible to prove misconduct in violation of the UCMJ, in United States v. Hale
CAAF decided the Air Force case of United States v. Hale, __ M.J. __, No. 18-0162/AF (CAAFlog case page) (link to slip op.), on February 6, 2019. Addressing the limited (though recently expanded) UCMJ jurisdiction over members of the reserve components and the prosecution’s use of evidence of conduct that occurred outside of those limits in this case, a majority of CAAF finds the evidence was properly used to prove intent associated with conduct that was subject to UCMJ jurisdiction, and it affirms the findings, sentence, and decision of the Air Force CCA.
Judge Sparks writes for the court joined by all but Judge Ohlson, who dissents in part (disagreeing with the core holding of the majority opinion).
CAAF then granted review of two issues and specified a third:
I. The lower court found as a matter of law that personal jurisdiction does not exist outside of the hours of inactive-duty training. The lower court proceeded to find personal jurisdiction existed over Appellant because he was “staying” with his in-laws. Was this error?
II. Whether the lower court erred when it concluded the military judge correctly instructed the members they could convict Appellant for conduct “on or about” the dates alleged in each specification.
III. Whether the lower court erred in concluding the court-martial had jurisdiction over specification 2 of additional charge 1, as modified to affirm the lesser included offense of attempted larceny.