United States v. Jackson
201600299
| N.M.C.C.A. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Contested general court-martial; appellant convicted of maiming, aggravated assault, and child endangerment arising from burns to AH, a four-year-old step-daughter, with related medical treatment and care delays.
- Appellant placed AH in a tub with hot water; he allegedly abandoned her, leading to serious burns on feet and buttocks treated as second- to third-degree.
- AH provided forensic interview (Sept. 2, 2015) describing the event; a video of the interview was admitted as residual hearsay under Mil. R. Evid. 807 during trial.
- Defense theory: appellant intended no harm; instead, AH’s injuries resulted from AH’s own actions while unsupervised; appellant sought to minimize medical care delays.
- The military judge admitted the AH video, treated the injuries as evidence of intent/motive, and the court ultimately affirmed findings and sentence, with Article 128 (aggravated assault) dismissed for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause; admissibility of AH video | Gardinier protects confrontation; video is testimonial | Video admissible as non-testimonial residual hearsay | Video admissible; cross-examination adequate; Crawford satisfied |
| Factual sufficiency of maiming (Art. 124, UCMJ) | AH’s statements show intent to injure | Intent inferred from conduct not solely statements | Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt established by circumstantial and forensic evidence |
| Factual sufficiency of child endangerment (Art. 134, UCMJ) | Inaction endangered health; culpable negligence | Delay medical care not negligent given surrounding circumstances | Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on endangerment |
| Residual hearsay necessity and reliability under Mil. R. Evid. 807 | Video necessary to prove motive and presence | Necessity and reliability unproven | Necessity satisfied; reliability supported by expert interview protocol |
| Aggravated assault vagueness as applied | Vagueness renders charge unconstitutional | Not explicitly addressed due to dismissal for sentencing | Moot/not necessary to resolve on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gardinier, 65 M.J. 60 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (Confrontation Clause assessment for testimonial statements)
- United States v. Rhodes, 61 M.J. 445 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (Confrontation when declarant testifies or can be cross-examined)
- United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (Memory loss does not defeat opportunity for cross-examination)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (Opportunity for effective cross-examination governs Confrontation Clause)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Testimonial statements subject to confrontation unless unavailable and cross-examined)
- United States v. Wellington, 58 M.J. 420 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (Residual hearsay analysis; best evidence and reliability factors)
- United States v. Rankin, 63 M.J. 552 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (Appellate review of sufficiency with fresh, independent view)