United States v. Anderson
ACM 2016-17
| A.F.C.C.A. | May 31, 2017Background
- Petitioner (Air Force member) was convicted at a general court-martial of sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, aggravated assault, assault consummated by battery, kidnapping, and wrongful threat; sentence: dismissal and 42 months confinement.
- At trial Defense sought to admit evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 412 that the victim (KA) had a sexual relationship with coworker JM; the military judge held a closed Mil. R. Evid. 412 hearing and excluded evidence as not relevant (relationship post-dated KA’s September 2013 report).
- Pretrial and trial record included ambiguous evidence that JM may have been at KA’s home in October 2013 and text messages suggesting possible negotiations about disposition; Defense did not pursue bias/motive-to-fabricate questioning at trial.
- After trial, Petitioner learned of (1) payments from KA’s mother to JM in summer 2014 and (2) post-trial statements by JM and KA suggesting their dating/sexual relationship may have begun earlier than they testified; Defense sought a post-trial Article 39(a) session and a new-trial petition to TJAG.
- Military judge at the Article 39(a) session found the payments were for house renovations in anticipation of marriage/merging families, not to influence testimony; the judge also found the witnesses’ timeline statements were vague and not demonstrably perjurious.
- This court denied the petition for a new trial, concluding (a) KA did not commit fraud on the court, (b) post-trial timeline statements were inconsistent/vague and not proof of deliberate perjury, (c) payments did not show improper influence, and (d) newly discovered evidence would not probably produce a substantially more favorable result.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KA committed perjury/fraud on the court such that a new trial is required | KA lied at the Mil. R. Evid. 412 hearing when she said the sexual relationship with JM began in spring 2014; post-trial statements prove deliberate perjury | KA’s testimony was consistent enough; post-trial statements are vague and do not prove deliberate perjury or fraud | Denied — court found inconsistencies were minor, not proved perjury or fraud on the court |
| Whether newly discovered evidence (post-trial statements about timeline) warrants a new trial | JM/KA’s post-trial statements showing an earlier sexual relationship are newly discovered and would have changed admissibility under Mil. R. Evid. 412 | Statements are imprecise, were effectively available/foreshadowed pretrial, and would not probably produce a substantially more favorable result | Denied — new timeline evidence would not likely change outcome or admissibility ruling |
| Whether payments from KA’s mother to JM show improper influence requiring a new trial | Payments suggest JM changed or would change testimony in exchange for renovations/housing assistance | Military judge found payments were for renovations in preparation to marry KA; no evidence they influenced testimony | Denied — payments found legitimate and not probative of influence on testimony |
| Whether the Mil. R. Evid. 412 exclusion was erroneous such that a new trial is needed | If earlier sexual relations existed, the 412 exclusion was incorrect and prejudicial | The judge excluded under relevance (relationship post‑dated report); even assuming earlier relations, the rationale would remain unaffected given vague timelines and other corroborating evidence against Petitioner | Denied — even with assumed earlier relations, exclusion would likely stand and overall evidence supports conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bacon, 12 M.J. 489 (C.M.A. 1982) (standard: discretionary review of petitions for new trial and trial-court factfinding)
- United States v. Hull, 70 M.J. 145 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (new-trial petitions disfavored; manifest injustice standard)
- United States v. Williams, 37 M.J. 352 (C.A.A.F. 1993) (new trial warranted where extramarital relationship concealed and could show motive to fabricate)
- United States v. Rios, 48 M.J. 261 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (post-trial changes in witness testimony viewed with suspicion)
- United States v. Luke, 69 M.J. 309 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (standards for newly discovered evidence in petitions for new trial)