United States v. Grassey, ACM 38973

Appellant, an Airman First Class (19), exchanged messages with JK, a 15-year-old civilian who misrepresented her age as 16, and solicited sexually explicit images and video.
On February 11, 2014, during a video chat, Appellant recorded JK without her knowledge while directing her to perform sexually explicit acts; he made three recordings and saved them to his computer.
Appellant pleaded guilty (consistent with a pretrial agreement) to producing and possessing child pornography under Article 134, UCMJ; the court-martial adjudged BCD, 9 months confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E-1, with the convening authority approving 8 months per the PTA.
On appeal, Appellant challenged the propriety of trial counsel’s sentencing argument, asserting it improperly suggested he was a sexual predator with a propensity to reoffend.
Trial counsel characterized Appellant’s conduct as “grooming,” “lurking on social networking sites,” and argued confinement would prevent him from “trolling dating sites”; defense counsel did not object at trial but rebutted the implication of predatory status.
The convening authority and the court found no prejudice from a minor administrative error in the SJA addendum; Appellant waived multiplicity claims which the court declined to reach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s sentencing argument improperly suggested Appellant was a sexual predator or had propensity to reoffend	Trial counsel’s language ("grooming," "lurking," "trolling") implied Appellant was a serial predator and would reoffend, relying on facts not in evidence	Trial counsel’s remarks were grounded in the facts of Appellant’s interaction with JK and were proper comments on specific deterrence and confinement’s incapacitation effect	No plain error; statements were permissible in context and did not materially prejudice Appellant

United States v. Frey, 73 M.J. 245 (C.A.A.F.) (trial counsel may not argue unsubstantiated inference that accused is a serial offender)
United States v. Halpin, 71 M.J. 477 (C.A.A.F.) (unspecified-error/ plain-error review when no contemporaneous objection)
United States v. Winckelmann, 70 M.J. 403 (C.A.A.F.) (definition of "grooming" as sexualization of relationship over time)
United States v. Marsh, 70 M.J. 101 (C.A.A.F.) (plain-error test elements)
United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F.) (presumption military judges can disregard improper argument)