United States v. Gutierrez
2014 CAAF LEXIS 271
| C.A.A.F. | 2014Background
- Gutierrez Jr. was convicted by general court-martial of stalking under Article 120a, UCMJ, and acquitted of rape under Article 120, UCMJ, with a sentence including reduction in grade, forfeiture, confinement, and bad-conduct discharge.
- Government relied on rape evidence to support the stalking course-of-conduct element; Gutierrez challenged sufficiency after the acquittal on rape.
- Factual backdrop: AM, a German national, had a pattern of packages sent to Gutierrez’s APO address, leading to escalating contact initiated by Gutierrez after AM’s difficulties with deliveries.
- On August 10, 2010, Gutierrez allegedly entered AM’s apartment, assaulted her, and engaged in sexual intercourse despite her protests; this incident underpinned stalking evidence.
- Subsequent August/September 2010 incidents involved Gutierrez uninvitedly arriving at AM’s building, ringing the doorbell for long periods, and contacting AM by calls and texts, awakening AM and her daughter.
- On October 2, 2010, Gutierrez again contacted AM, gained access to her building, kicked the door, and engaged in intimidating, sexually charged conduct; this incident was conceded as stalking conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stalking evidence was legally sufficient after rape acquittal | Gutierrez argues only October 2 incident supports stalking; two or more occasions required. | Government contends combined incidents show a two-or-more occasions course of conduct. | Yes; evidence viewed collectively supports stalking sufficiency. |
| Can prior rape evidence be used to prove stalking when rape acquittal occurred | Acquittal on rape removed that incident from course-of-conduct analysis. | August 10 rape incident remains probative for course of conduct in stalking. | August 10 incident may be considered to establish stalking course of conduct. |
| Does repeated non-threatening contact suffice for course of conduct | Repeated calls/texts, viewed with conduct, constitute implied threats creating fear. | Contents of messages not overtly threatening alone are insufficient without context of earlier conduct. | Yes; patterns of contact, in context with prior incidents, can establish course of conduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) (inconsistent verdicts not basis for relief alone)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent verdicts and sufficiency considerations)
- United States v. Jackson, 7 C.M.A. 67 (1956) (independent sufficiency review for rational guilty finding)
- United States v. Cauley, 45 M.J. 353 (1996) (scope of de novo sufficiency review)
- United States v. McGinty, 38 M.J. 131 (1993) (standards for sufficiency of evidence in military cases)
- United States v. Bennitt, 72 M.J. 266 (2013) (Jackson-based sufficiency framework in CAAF)
- United States v. Oliver, 70 M.J. 64 (2011) (sufficiency review under Jackson framework)