midpage
Projects
Sign in to see your projects.
76 M.J. 862
USCG CCA
2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Appellant was tried by special court-martial (military judge alone) and convicted, contrary to pleas, of one specification of abusive sexual contact under Article 120, UCMJ.
  • Sentence: reduction to E-1, 30 days confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge; approved by the Convening Authority.
  • The charged specification alleged Appellant “pulled down the shorts and underwear of [NP] with his hands, exposing [NP]’s buttocks, when the accused knew or reasonably should have known that [she] was asleep.”
  • Article 120(g)(2) defines sexual contact to include touching, either directly or through clothing, of the buttocks or any body part with a proscribed intent.
  • Appellant moved to dismiss the specification at trial for failure to state an offense; the military judge denied the motion. On appeal, the court considered whether the specification sufficiently alleged a touching and intent.

Issues

Issue Appellant's Argument Government's Argument Held
1. Does the specification state an offense by alleging the requisite touching? Specification necessarily implies a touching (pulling down shorts/underwear exposed buttocks) and thus states the offense. The specification adequately describes the conduct; trial should have decided factual questions. Specification fails to allege any touching; dismissal required.
2. Is the evidence legally and factually sufficient to prove Appellant knew or should have known NP was asleep? Evidence established NP was asleep when contact occurred. Evidence was sufficient to support conviction. Not reached (court did not decide because specification dismissed).

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Crafter, 64 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (specification sufficiency may be found by express allegation or necessary implication)
  • United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (narrow review of specification sufficiency when motion to dismiss raised at trial; erroneous denial may require dismissal)
  • United States v. Mayo, 12 M.J. 286 (C.M.A. 1982) (specification sufficient if necessary facts appear in any form or by fair construction)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Leal
Court Name: U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals
Date Published: Oct 19, 2017
Citations: 76 M.J. 862; 2017 WL 4680394; CGCMS 24949; Docket No. 1445 1445
Docket Number: CGCMS 24949; Docket No. 1445 1445
Court Abbreviation: USCG CCA
Log In