United States v. Andrews
201600208
| N.M.C.C.A. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Appellant (Navy Petty Officer) convicted at mixed-plea general court-martial of multiple offenses by plea and, contrary to plea, convicted by members of sexual assault (Article 120, UCMJ); sentence included confinement and dishonorable discharge; approved as adjudged.
- Incident: beach party moved to host’s house; victim (Ms. AB) highly intoxicated by witnesses’ accounts, went to guest bedroom and partially disrobed, fell asleep or passed out.
- Appellant entered the guest bedroom after being told not to, had sexual intercourse with Ms. AB; victim testified she woke to pressure, yelled “stop” and pushed him off; she later vomited and was distraught.
- Appellant’s NCIS statement admitted she was drunk, possibly asleep, that she vomited, and recounted an account asserting she consented after earlier uncertainty; he also gave retrospective reasons (e.g., thinking she might confuse him with another sailor).
- Military judges and panel deliberated; appellant appealed alleging (1) factual insufficiency of sexual-assault finding, (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, and (3) wrongful exclusion of evidence about appellant’s intoxication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual sufficiency of sexual-assault conviction (incapable of consenting due to intoxication) | Appellant: evidence insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew or should have known victim was incapable of consenting | Government: victim and multiple witnesses described severe intoxication; appellant’s own admissions corroborate impairment and his awareness | Court: Affirmed conviction; evidence factually sufficient that victim was incapable of consenting and appellant knew or reasonably should have known |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (improper closing arguments) | Appellant: TC repeatedly called him a liar, misstated evidence, attacked defense counsel, vouched for victim, and misstated law — prejudicial | Government: many arguments were reasonable inferences from evidence; any errors were isolated or harmless given strength of case and judge’s instructions | Court: Found several instances of plain error (excessive “liar” labels, invented admissions, improper attack on defense, misleading analogies to civil capacity) but cumulative misconduct did not materially prejudice appellant; no relief granted |
| Exclusion of evidence of appellant’s intoxication (right to present defense) | Appellant: evidence of his intoxication relevant to his situational awareness and mens rea—should have been admitted | Government: voluntary intoxication not a defense; Article 120(b)(3) requires only general intent (reasonable should have known), so appellant’s actual intoxication is not legally relevant | Court: Military judge did not abuse discretion in excluding detailed testimony about appellant’s intoxication; even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given admissions and other evidence |
| Misstatement of law by trial counsel (analogies to enlistment/contract capacity) | Appellant: analogies misled members about standard for incapacity to consent | Government: argued by analogy and as common-knowledge examples | Held: Analogies were confusing and plainly improper, but in context did not produce reversible prejudice because government case was strong and judge’s instructions remedied legal standard |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F.) (factual-sufficiency standard)
- United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A.) (test for factual sufficiency)
- United States v. Solis, 75 M.J. 759 (C.A.A.F.) (definition of incapable of consenting due to impairment)
- United States v. Pease, 74 M.J. 763 (C.A.A.F.) (related standard on impairment and consent)
- United States v. Fletcher, 62 M.J. 175 (C.A.A.F.) (prosecutorial limits on labeling defendant a liar and vouching)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1935) (prosecutorial misconduct framework)
- United States v. Sewell, 76 M.J. 14 (C.A.A.F.) (improper argument review)
- United States v. Bess, 75 M.J. 70 (C.A.A.F.) (right to present a complete defense / limits on cross-examination)