United States v. Chikaka
2017 CAAF LEXIS 627
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- SSgt Nhubu C. Chikaka, a Marine Corps recruiter, was convicted at a general court-martial of multiple offenses arising from sexual and related misconduct with poolees and obstruction of justice.
- At sentencing the military judge admitted: (1) a photograph of the Commandant shaking hands with a victim’s relative, and (2) testimony from Appellant’s commanding officer stressing the need to set a strong example and impose harsh sentences for deterrence.
- Trial counsel argued for 10 years confinement (max exposure ~36.5 years); the panel sentenced Chikaka to 12 years confinement (later approved at 10 years after clemency remand).
- The Navy–Marine Corps CCA affirmed the findings, reversed certain evidentiary rulings, consolidated multiplicitous obstruction specifications, and reassessed the sentence to 5 years confinement (then ultimately affirmed by that court).
- This Court granted review on whether those admissions and testimony created unlawful command influence (UCI) sufficient to shift the burden to the Government to disprove UCI beyond a reasonable doubt, and also considered a contested jury instruction claim.
Issues
| Issue | Chikaka’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether testimony by Appellant’s CO and admission of Commandant photo at sentencing constituted "some evidence" of unlawful command influence (UCI) | CO’s testimony and Commandant imagery pressured panel to impose a harsh sentence; this is "some evidence" of UCI requiring burden shift to Government | CCA’s sentence reassessment and evidentiary rulings cured any UCI; testimony/photo were permissible context for deterrence | Court held CO’s presentencing testimony constituted "some evidence" of UCI at sentencing, shifting burden to Government; remanded to CCA to apply Boyce and determine relief (photo left for CCA to assess) |
| Whether there was "some evidence" of UCI at findings phase (including alleged campaign plan/Heritage Tour influence) | Campaign plan and Commandant’s guidance created pressure that affected findings | No direct evidence that campaign plan or Heritage Tour guidance improperly influenced findings | Court held Appellant failed to show "some evidence" of UCI at findings phase |
| Whether CCA’s sentence reassessment remedied alleged UCI | Reassessment did not address UCI because relief was not granted on UCI grounds; therefore UCI remains unresolved for sentencing | Argued reassessment cured any potential influence | Court held reassessment did not resolve UCI question and remanded for CCA to determine impact under Boyce |
| Whether military judge plainly erred in a jury instruction ("firmly convinced" standard) | Instruction improper but not objected to at trial | No plain error in light of precedent | Court held no plain error under United States v. McClour |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salyer, 72 M.J. 415 (C.A.A.F.) ("some evidence" standard for UCI threshold)
- United States v. Boyce, 76 M.J. 242 (C.A.A.F.) (burden shifts to Government to disprove UCI beyond a reasonable doubt once "some evidence" is shown)
- United States v. Ohrt, 28 M.J. 301 (C.M.A.) (commanding officer testimony advocating a particular sentence can constitute UCI)
- United States v. Cherry, 31 M.J. 1 (C.M.A.) (commander's opinion about appropriate punishment invades court-martial's province and may constitute UCI)
- United States v. McClour, 76 M.J. 23 (C.A.A.F.) (plain error review for unobjected-to jury instruction)