United States v. Capel
2013 CAAF LEXIS 167
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Appellant was tried by a military judge sitting as a special court-martial and convicted of signing a false official document, two specifications of larceny, and three specifications of obtaining services by false pretenses under UCMJ Articles 107, 121, and 134.
- Adjudged sentence included bad-conduct discharge, six months’ confinement, $200 pay forfeiture per month for six months, and reduction to E-1; the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
- The government granted review on whether the Charge III specifications under Article 134 stated an offense despite not expressly alleging the terminal element, and on whether the evidence sufficed for Article 107 false official statement under controlling precedent.
- Factual scene: Appellant stayed at SSgt Addison’s home, slept on a chair; Addison’s debit card and wallet were left exposed, and unauthorized charges totaling $2,100 appeared days later.
- Civilian police investigated, detective Renfroe interviewed Appellant, who waived rights and gave exculpatory statements; Appellant later signed a written denial of using the card, and civil authorities initially chose not to prosecute.
- At trial, Appellant testified that Addison would pay his bills and that Addison provided a laptop, while Addison testified he did not use his card for those payments; the jury resolved the conflicts in Appellant’s favor on the larceny/false pretenses counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lower court misapplied Fosler and Watkins | Capel argues the court misread the agent-witness relationship to official status. | Capel contends the specification states an offense despite not naming the terminal element. | The court held the Article 134 specification is not stated as charged. |
| Whether evidence supports making a false official statement under Article 107 | Capel asserts statements to civilian police fit official statements under Teffeau/Spicer framework. | Capel argues the statements were not official because no military duty relationship existed at the time. | The court held the statements were not official under Article 107. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Spicer, 71 M.J. 470 (CAAF 2013) (framework for official statements to civilian authorities in line of duty or related to official duties)
- United States v. Teffeau, 58 M.J. 62 (CAAF 2003) (official statement analysis under Article 107)
- United States v. Day, 66 M.J. 172 (CAAF 2008) (related discussions on official statements)
- United States v. Humphries, 71 M.J. 209 (CAAF 2012) (prejudice analysis under Article 134 specifications)