United States v. Medina
2011 CAAF LEXIS 196
C.A.A.F.2011Background
- Medina was convicted by general court-martial of willful dereliction of duty, aggravated sexual assault, and assault consummated by a battery under Articles 92, 120, and 128, UCMJ, and sentenced to reductions, forfeitures, confinement, and bad-conduct discharge.
- The case centers on the constitutionality of Article 120, UCMJ, and the defense of consent to aggravated sexual assault involving a substantially incapacitated victim.
- The military judge instructed that consent was a defense and that the Government must prove non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than requiring the accused to prove consent under the statute.
- The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the findings and sentence, and Medina appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).
- CAAF held that Prather’s constitutional concerns about a burden shift were not controlling given the trial instructions in this case, but found the judge’s failure to follow the statutory language error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The decision affirms the lower court’s ruling and discusses the need for Congressional revision of Article 120 to resolve the constitutional issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 120 creates an unconstitutional burden shift. | Medina argues the statute shifts burden to prove consent. | Medina argues the burden should rest with the defense as per statute. | Unconstitutional burden shift found in Prather, but not dispositive here. |
| Whether the military judge erred by not applying the statutory terms. | Medina contends the judge deviated from statutory language. | Medina contends instruction complied with statute. | Error to deviate from statute; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the instructional error prejudiced Medina. | Medina alleges prejudice from improper instruction. | Government contends no prejudice given overall instruction. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the case should be governed by Prather’s framework or the trial record. | Prather controls due to burden-shift analysis. | This case differs in instruction context; not controlling. | Prather control not dispositive; different instructional context. |
| Whether the court should adopt a uniform solution to Article 120 problems. | Judicial guidance needed for military trials. | Legislation should fix the statute; court should avoid rewriting statute. | Court urges Congressional revision; declines uniform procedural rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Prather, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F.2011) (unconstitutional burden shift when consent defense required proof by defense; no cure by ultimate-instruction; governing statutory scheme creates burden shift)
- United States v. Ober, 66 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F.2008) (review of instruction adequacy as a question of law; de novo)
- United States v. Wolford, 62 M.J. 418 (C.A.A.F.2006) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for instructional error with constitutional dimensions)
- Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1987) (establishes burden on government and standard of proof in jury instructions)
- United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (Supreme Court 2010) (constitutional saving construction not available where statute not susceptible)
- United States v. Medina, 69 M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F.2010) (order granting review on facial constitutionality of Article 120(c)(2))