United States v. Blanks, ACM 38891

Background

Appellant, a Senior Airman with >7 years service, was tried by general court-martial and convicted (consistent and contrary to pleas) of multiple offenses including three false official statements, negligent dereliction of duty (lesser-included), larceny of military property (BAH by false pretenses), and obstruction of justice; sentence: bad-conduct discharge, 30 days confinement, forfeitures, reduction to E‑1.
While on unaccompanied tours (Korea, then RAF Mildenhall U.K.), Appellant repeatedly certified he provided "adequate support" for his spouse and listed her residence as his mother’s home, thereby receiving additional BAH.
Evidence showed the spouse lived with Appellant’s mother only during early Korea tour, moved out ~March 2012, and Appellant provided little or no support while stationed in the U.K.; Appellant continued to receive dependent BAH.
When seeking paternity leave for his pregnant girlfriend, Appellant lied to leadership and investigators that the girlfriend was his wife; he also attempted to coach his wife and her boyfriend to deny knowing him—basis for false-statement and obstruction convictions.
Defense moved to suppress the final ~15 minutes of a videotaped investigator interview, arguing Appellant unambiguously invoked counsel; the military judge denied suppression in part, but the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) concluded the invocation was unambiguous and the judge abused discretion in admitting that portion, yet found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Invocation of counsel — whether questioning after invocation should have been suppressed	Appellant contends he unambiguously invoked counsel and subsequent questioning should have been suppressed	Government contends at least one invocation was ambiguous and investigators validly continued after clarifying; any error was harmless	AFCCA: Second invocation ("wait for my lawyer...don’t want to do any statements or anything until she’s here") was an unambiguous invocation; military judge abused discretion by admitting the later portion, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (no prejudice)
Challenge for cause of two members — adequacy of on‑record basis	Appellant argues Government failed to state grounds on record for challenges for cause	Government pointed to voir dire answers; Defense did not oppose removal	Waiver: Defense affirmatively concurred in removal; AFCCA declines relief
Exclusion of testimony that spouse stole items from Appellant’s family home	Appellant argues testimony about spouse stealing was relevant to show support and credibility	Government argues such testimony would be extrinsic evidence of specific bad acts and risked a trial‑within‑a‑trial; limited probative value under Mil. R. Evid. 403/608(b)	AFCCA: No abuse of discretion excluding character/accusatory testimony; witnesses could still testify about support provided by Appellant/mother
Factual sufficiency — false statement re: "adequate support" and larceny by false pretenses	Appellant argues no proof he knew what constituted "adequate" support; lacking intent, false‑statement and larceny fail	Government emphasizes prolonged lack of support, repeated certifications, fabricated documents, deception and attempts to obstruct as evidence of intent to deceive	AFCCA: Evidence was factually sufficient to prove false official statement and larceny by false pretenses beyond a reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Cote, 72 M.J. 41 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for suppression rulings)
Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1984) (statements after a clear invocation of counsel may not be considered to render the invocation ambiguous)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (objective test for ambiguity of invocation; reasonable investigator standard)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1991) (invocation requires a statement reasonably construed as desire for counsel)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (once counsel is requested, further interrogation requires accused to initiate conversation and valid waiver)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (government must prove constitutional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (de novo factual‑sufficiency review standard)
United States v. Mitchell, 51 M.J. 234 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard applied to constitutional errors)