United States v. Langhorne, ACM 39047

Background

Appellant, an Air Force member, conspired with SSgt Bailey to murder MC for money; they discussed arson and other methods, and Appellant set fire to MC’s inhabited dwelling in January 2014 while her children slept inside.
Appellant received cash and gift cards from Bailey, purchased a propane torch, surveilled MC, provided a .22 pistol and suppressor, and participated in further planning; Bailey later cooperated with AFOSI.
Appellant was tried by a general court-martial: convicted (contrary to pleas) of conspiracy to commit premeditated murder (two specs), aggravated arson (inhabited dwelling), and reckless endangerment (Article 134); pleaded guilty to steroid offenses; sentenced to dishonorable discharge, 12 years confinement, forfeitures, and reduction.
AFOSI accessed Appellant’s Facebook messages using a username/password Appellant disclosed during monitored jail calls to a third party; Appellant moved to suppress these messages as a warrantless search.
Defense sought to impeach Bailey with extrinsic evidence of prior lies and to admit character-for-helpfulness evidence for Appellant; military judge excluded extrinsic impeachment and refused the character evidence.
Appellant raised multiple issues on appeal including Fourth Amendment challenges to searches of Facebook and his cell phone, impeachment and character-evidence rulings, preemption of Article 134 by Article 126, lesser-included instruction requests, and factual sufficiency of a conspiracy specification; the CAAF affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Warrantless access to Facebook messages	Accessing Facebook with the password obtained from monitored calls was an unlawful warrantless search violating the Fourth Amendment	Appellant voluntarily revealed username/password on recorded, monitored calls; no reasonable expectation of privacy remained	Court held no Fourth Amendment search — third-party doctrine + recorded call notice meant no reasonable privacy expectation; admission proper
2. Impeachment by contradiction (extrinsic evidence of Bailey’s lies)	Defense needed to introduce extrinsic evidence to contradict Bailey’s denials to show untruthfulness	Military judge excluded under Mil. R. Evid. 608(b) as impermissible extrinsic proof of specific instances of conduct	Court held military judge did not abuse discretion: matters were collateral or foreclosed by admissions; impeachment by contradiction unavailable here
3. Character-for-helpfulness evidence	Evidence that Appellant’s helpfulness showed intent to dissuade Bailey, not to further the murder plot	Prosecution viewed helpfulness as inconsistent with defense theory and irrelevant	Court held judge did not abuse discretion excluding it as not pertinent under Mil. R. Evid. 401/404(a)(2)(A)
4. Preemption: Article 134 reckless endangerment vs Article 126 arson	Article 126 occupies the field for arson-related conduct so Article 134 is preempted	Article 134 (person-focused) contains elements (likely to cause death/grievous harm) different from Article 126 (property-focused) — no preemption	Court held Article 134 not preempted by Article 126; offenses address different societal concerns
5. Lesser-included instruction (simple arson)	Defense asked for simple arson instruction as lesser-included of aggravated arson	Prosecution said inhabited-dwelling element undisputed so lesser not reasonably raised	Court held military judge correctly denied instruction because the distinguishing element (inhabited dwelling) was not in dispute
6. Instructional and deliberation issues (conspiracy elements / member question)	Appellant later challenged the supplementary instruction given during deliberations	Defense counsel approved the proposed instruction at sidebar and on record	Court enforced the defense’s affirmative waiver and left instructional rulings intact
7. Factual sufficiency — withdrawal from conspiracy	Appellant argued he withdrew based on conditional text stating he would not help unless things changed	Text was conditional and he later provided the weapon; he participated in overt acts	Court held evidence — including provision of the firearm — was sufficient; no effective withdrawal
8. Post-trial/appellate delay	Appellant implied delay beyond Moreno thresholds	Court considered Moreno/Barker factors; Appellant did not show prejudice	Court found no due process violation and denied relief

Key Cases Cited

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (Court applied reasonable expectation of privacy analysis)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (third-party doctrine; no expectation of privacy in information voluntarily conveyed to third parties)
United States v. Nieto, 76 M.J. 101 (standard of review for motions to suppress/admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (presumptively unreasonable post-trial delay; Barker factors framework)
United States v. Anderson, 68 M.J. 378 (preemption doctrine requires congressional intent to occupy the field)