United States v. Gomez, 2017 CAAF LEXIS 55

Appellant, a Coast Guard petty officer, was convicted at general court-martial of aggravated sexual assault, multiple sexual-contact offenses, maltreatment, false official statement, violating a lawful general order, and a general disorder; sentence approved: 8 years confinement, reduction to E-1, dishonorable discharge.
Convictions arose from sexual assaults and repeated sexual misconduct toward several female subordinates aboard USCGC Gallatin and an aggravated sexual assault of a civilian who was sleeping.
Two victims (SW and MS) testified at sentencing about the emotional and medical impacts of the crimes and trial process; each mentioned pregnancy-related complications (SW: preeclampsia and premature birth; MS: miscarriage of one twin and concern for remaining fetus).
Defense did not object to either victim’s presentencing testimony or cross-examine them on those statements.
Appellant appealed, arguing the military judge erred in admitting those statements at sentencing because there was no evidence linking his misconduct to the pregnancy complications; the case reached this Court on plain-error review.
The Court affirmed the CCA: Appellant failed to show plain error—no prejudice shown from SW’s testimony and no clear or obvious error shown for MS’s ambiguous testimony.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether military judge erred in admitting victims’ pregnancy-related statements at sentencing without evidence connecting misconduct to complications	Admission of SW and MS testimony was improper medical/causation evidence and hearsay; no foundation for causation	Testimony about impact of crimes/process is admissible in aggravation; statements were brief/ambiguous and not clearly prejudicial	Affirmed: No plain error—Appellant failed to show prejudice for SW and failed to show clear or obvious error for MS

United States v. Maynard, 66 M.J. 242 (plain-error review standard in military cases)
United States v. Knapp, 73 M.J. 33 (plain-error elements)
United States v. Bungert, 62 M.J. 346 (failure to establish any plain-error prong is fatal)
United States v. Eslinger, 70 M.J. 193 (prejudice/substantial influence on sentence analysis)
United States v. Kerr, 51 M.J. 401 (factors for evaluating prejudice from erroneous evidence)
United States v. Stephens, 67 M.J. 233 (aggravation evidence: effect of process on victim admissible)
United States v. Wilson, 35 M.J. 473 (aggravation evidence may include harm to victim’s family)
United States v. Barnes, 33 M.J. 468 (brief use of improper aggravation evidence may negate prejudice)
United States v. Burton, 67 M.J. 150 (plain-error clear-or-obvious inquiry in context of entire trial)
Frady v. United States, 456 U.S. 152 (clarification of plain-error/obviousness standard)
United States v. Carpenter, 51 M.J. 393 (failure to object as evidence of minimal impact)
Holman v. 840 F.3d 347 (ambiguity precludes plain-error relief)
Etienne v. 772 F.3d 907 (no plain-error relief where appellant declines to clarify ambiguous testimony)
Rose v. 587 F.3d 695 (ambiguity in evidence not clearly erroneous on plain-error review)