United States v. Luna, 201500423

Appellant convicted at general court-martial of rape, sodomy, indecent acts and indecent liberties against his stepdaughter Veronica (abuse occurred when she was ~11–13); sentenced to 20 years confinement and dishonorable discharge; CA approved.
Veronica testified in detail about multiple types of sexual abuse (digital/penile contact, oral sex, exposure, forced touching); corroborated by sister Betty, mother Sally, and inculpatory text messages from appellant.
Sally confronted appellant in 2007 after Veronica disclosed; family remained in contact for years thereafter; formal NCIS report was filed in 2014 after appellant formed a new relationship and had another child.
Appellant challenged legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and argued trial error in the military judge’s instruction admitting charged offenses as propensity evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 414 (analogous to Hills decision concerns).
Court found Veronica’s testimony credible and corroborated; concluded one specification (alleging kissing "on divers occasions") could not be sustained as alleging multiple occasions and struck that language, but otherwise affirmed findings and sentence after concluding any propensity-instruction error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal & factual sufficiency of convictions	Evidence (Veronica, corroboration) proves each element beyond a reasonable doubt	Delay in reporting, continued relationship, and appellant denial undermine credibility	Convictions upheld except removal of phrase "on divers occasions" in one spec; overall sufficiency affirmed
Admissibility/use of charged conduct as propensity evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 414	Prosecution relied on charged conduct properly to prove offenses and propensity	Appellant: charged offenses cannot be used as propensity evidence (per Hills/Hukill)	Instruction admitting charged offenses as propensity evidence was error under Hills/Hukill principles
Prejudicial effect / harmlessness of propensity-instruction error	Error did not contribute to verdict; strong victim testimony, corroboration, and prosecutor did not emphasize propensity	Appellant: error implicated due process by allowing preponderance standard and risked undermining presumption of innocence	Error deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on the whole record; convictions and sentence stand (except noted amendment)
Sentence reassessment after modifying finding	Government: modification does not change punitive landscape; same sentence appropriate	Appellant: modification could affect sentencing outcome	Court reassessed and affirmed the sentence as appropriate and reliably the same absent the excised language

United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (military judge erred by admitting charged offenses as propensity evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 413/414)
United States v. Ediger, 68 M.J. 243 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (standard of review for Mil. R. Evid. 414 admissibility)
United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (CCA may reassess sentence when it can reliably determine appropriate punishment)
United States v. Kreutzer, 61 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (constitutional instructional error reviewed for harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (legal and factual sufficiency standards)