United States v. Chambers, ACM 38975

Appellant, tried by general court-martial, pleaded guilty to attempted receipt of child pornography, multiple counts of sexual abuse and rape of a child, wrongful possession of child pornography, and wrongfully inducing minors to create sexually-explicit images; sentence: dishonorable discharge, 50 years confinement, forfeitures, reduction to E-1.
Victim RC (Appellant’s 11-year-old stepsister) testified Appellant repeatedly raped and sexually abused her (penile and digital penetration, unwanted touching, coerced sexual acts, and showing pornographic video). Some abuse occurred before Appellant’s Air Force service.
Appellant also searched for, received, and possessed child pornography and requested three other minors produce and send sexually-explicit images to him.
At sentencing, defense objected to a pre-service photograph of RC; the military judge sustained that objection. Defense counsel otherwise affirmatively declined to object to RC’s testimony about pre-service abuse (referred to as “414 evidence”), waiving appellate challenge.
Appellant challenged three convictions under Article 134 (persuading/inducing/enticing minors to produce images) as preempted by Article 120b; the court rejected preemption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of sentencing evidence (pre-service abuse testimony)	Appellant argued the military judge erred in admitting sentencing evidence of abuse before the charged period.	Government defended admission; trial defense counsel waived objection by declining to object to RC’s testimony as “414 evidence.”	Waiver: Appellant waived the claim at trial. Even if forfeited, no plain error because pre-service abuse was part of a continuous course of conduct directly related to charged offenses.
Preemption of Article 134 specifications by Article 120b	Appellant argued Article 134 charges for inducing minors to create images are preempted by Article 120b(c).	Government argued Congress did not intend Article 120b to occupy the field to the exclusion of Article 134 child pornography-type offenses; enticing/inducing to create images is distinct harm.	Court held preemption does not apply: Article 134 specifications were not preempted by Article 120b.

United States v. Ediger, 68 M.J. 243 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (standard of review for sentencing evidence admission)
United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (forfeiture/waiver of appellate claims)
United States v. Harcrow, 66 M.J. 154 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (plain error review for forfeited issues)
United States v. Kick, 7 M.J. 82 (C.M.A. 1979) (preemption doctrine framework under Article 134)
United States v. Curry, 35 M.J. 359 (C.M.A. 1992) (two-part test for preemption: congressional intent and residuum of elements)
United States v. Nourse, 55 M.J. 229 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (uncharged misconduct that is continuous with charged offenses may be admitted at sentencing)