United States v. Jones
ACM S32343
| A.F.C.C.A. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Appellant, a TSgt, pled guilty at a special court-martial to indecent viewing, indecent visual recording (Article 120c), adultery, and two Article 134 offenses for wrongfully discovering/photographing and searching/photographing a fellow Airman’s personal photographs and belongings.
- The core misconduct: repeatedly peering into neighbor SrA LY’s bedroom through blinds, drilling a half-inch peephole in her bedroom wall, and using a borescope and cell phone to take photos of her naked breasts, buttocks, and vaginal area.
- Appellant admitted viewing LY through both the blinds and the peephole on multiple occasions, and separately admitted using the borescope and cell phone to capture images on multiple occasions.
- Sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, nine months’ confinement, forfeitures (later waived for spouse), and reduction to E-1; convening authority approved subject to some relief.
- Appellant argued the convictions for viewing and photographing were an unreasonable multiplication of charges (essentially one incident), seeking merger for sentencing; the military judge denied the motion and the Air Force Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Jones' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for indecent viewing and indecent visual recording were unreasonably multiplied and should be merged for sentencing | Viewing and photographing were contemporaneous and indistinguishable — a single course of conduct, so the specifications should be merged | The acts involved distinct criminal acts and purposes (viewing vs. creating/storing images) with separate factual instances; no prosecutorial overreach | Court affirmed: not unreasonably multiplied; separate specifications properly charged and punishable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for unreasonable multiplication review)
- United States v. Anderson, 68 M.J. 378 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (multiplicity occurs when multiple convictions punish the same act or course of conduct)
- United States v. Roderick, 62 M.J. 425 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (defining multiplicity principles)
- United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (Quiroz multi-factor test for unreasonable multiplication of charges)
- United States v. Foster, 40 M.J. 140 (C.M.A. 1994) (government may not needlessly "pile on" charges)
- United States v. Williams, 74 M.J. 572 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2014) (separate or affirmative steps can distinguish possession/receipt/distribution offenses)