United States v. King
2012 CAAF LEXIS 276
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- King charged at general court-martial with indecent acts under Article 120(k) and related offenses involving his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter.
- Evidence includes a Skype conversation where King discussed a sex toy and sought to view his stepdaughter’s breasts; daughter testified to abuse.
- NCIS investigation recorded a Skype session forming basis for Specification 5 of Charge I.
- Defense moved to dismiss Specification 5 as not stating an offense; military judge denied; CCA affirmed.
- This Court granted review to assess Specification 5; NDAA 2012 subsequently repealed the 120(k) provision at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Specification 5 allege an offense under Article 120(k)? | King argues it fails to state indecent acts. | King contends the conduct falls outside 120(k) as indecent conduct. | No; the specification supports an attempted indecent act. |
| Is the evidence legally sufficient for attempted indecent act under Article 80? | (King) argues insufficient for attempted act. | (King) contends lack of overt act or intent established. | Yes; evidence supports attempted indecent act. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Crafter, 64 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (de novo review of statute-violation sufficiency for offenses)
- United States v. Lewis, 65 M.J. 85 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (plain-language rule; avoid absurd results in statutory construction)
- United States v. Brinson, 49 M.J. 360 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (coarse language can constitute indecent conduct)
- United States v. Littlewood, 53 M.J. 349 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (various offenses found indecent conduct when related to sexual impurity)
- United States v. Lofton, 69 M.J. 386 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (sexual comments by officer found indecent conduct)