United States v. Humphries
2012 CAAF LEXIS 691
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Appellee, married at the time, was convicted at general court-martial of consensual sodomy and adultery under UCMJ Articles 125 and 134.
- AFCCA held the bad-conduct discharge was too severe under the facts and referred issues to TJAG.
- On cross-petition, court addressed whether a contested adultery specification lacking a terminal element of Article 134 states an offense.
- Trial record showed the adultery specification did not allege the terminal element; the government did not discuss it at trial and the panel instructions came after evidence.
- Court dismissed the Article 134, UCMJ, adultery finding and remanded for reassessment or possible rehearing on sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adultery specification lacked the terminal element of Article 134, UCMJ. | Humphries argued the omission was plain error and prejudicial. | Humphries contends the defect prejudiced notice and trial fairness. | Yes; the specification was defective and plain error with material prejudice. |
| Appropriate remedy for a defective Article 134 specification in a contested case. | The government contends limited cure possible during trial could fix prejudice. | Humphries argues dismissal or remand is necessary to protect notice and fair trial rights. | Remand with dismissal of the adulter y finding and reassessment of sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F.2011) (defective Article 134 element omission; plain error analysis)
- United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F.2012) (plain error and prejudice analysis for Article 134 terminal element)
- United States v. Girouard, 70 M.J. 5 (C.A.A.F.2011) (nonstructural defective specifications; plain error framework)
- United States v. Mayo, 12 M.J. 286 (C.M.A.1982) (earlier standard on defective indictments/charges)
- Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (plain error approach for defective indictments in federal system)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain error prejudice standard in federal context)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (balancing test for plain error; notice and prejudice considerations)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (structural vs non-structural error; standard for nonjurisdictional errors)