United States v. Hahn, 201500364

Appellant (enlisted) convicted by general court-martial of one specification of sexual assault (Article 120, UCMJ); sentence: 6 months confinement, reduction to E‑1, forfeitures, dishonorable discharge; CA approved.
Victim (LCpl ASC) and appellant had a recent affectionate relationship with frequent texts; victim previously disclosed a prior sexual trauma and expressly texted on Dec 20 that she would not have sex that night.
On Dec 20, 2013, while in a hotel room the appellant engaged in intercourse and attempted oral sex; victim testified she resisted, left the room, and went to friends visibly upset; she later sent an angry text to appellant and reported the incident months later.
Defense vigorously cross-examined the victim, eliciting inconsistencies and expert testimony about tonic immobility/dissociation; defense also requested a mistake-of-fact-as-to-consent instruction, which the judge gave.
Court found the victim credible despite some inconsistencies, concluded the government disproved the mistake-of-fact defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and affirmed findings and sentence.
Court ordered correction of the CA’s promulgating order, which mistakenly described an additional specification as dismissed/withdrawn though the panel had found not guilty.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the military judge’s "firmly convinced" guilt instruction was erroneous	Instruction improperly lowered burden of proof	Instruction permissible under controlling precedent	Rejected — precedent (C.A.A.F.) permits the instruction (appellant’s AOE previously resolved against him)
Factual sufficiency of the sexual assault conviction	Victim testimony unreliable; appellant reasonably believed victim consented	Victim credible; texts and conduct show nonconsent; mistake of fact unreasonable	Affirmed — viewing whole record, appellate court convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Adequacy of mistake-of-fact defense instruction and whether defense prevailed	Appellant claims his belief in consent was reasonable	Govt proved mistake was neither honest nor reasonable given texts and conduct	Government rebutted beyond a reasonable doubt; mistake-of-fact defense failed
Accuracy of convening authority’s promulgating order	Not raised by appellant but affects records	Record shows inconsistent description of findings	Court ordered corrective action to reflect panel’s actual not-guilty finding

United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standard for appellate factual-sufficiency review)
United States v. Rankin, 63 M.J. 552 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (test for factual sufficiency; appellate review beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987) (foundational authority for appellate weighing of evidence)
United States v. Reed, 51 M.J. 559 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1999) (conflict in evidence does not preclude proof beyond reasonable doubt)
United States v. Paige, 67 M.J. 442 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (requirements for mistake-of-fact defense in consent cases)
United States v. Jones, 49 M.J. 85 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (mistake as to consent must be honest and reasonable)
United States v. Willis, 41 M.J. 435 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (discussion of subjective and objective components of mistake of fact)
United States v. McClour, 76 M.J. 23 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (upholding the challenged jury instruction)
United States v. Clifton, 35 M.J. 79 (C.M.A. 1992) (procedural citation regarding instruction challenges)
United States v. Crumpley, 49 M.J. 538 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1998) (right to accurate court-martial records)