United States v. Montesdeoca, 201600238

Appellant, a senior enlisted sailor, was tried by general court-martial and convicted of one specification of sexual assault and one specification of abusive sexual contact under Article 120, UCMJ; the members acquitted him of rape. The military judge conditionally dismissed the abusive sexual contact specification as an unreasonable multiplication of charges before sentencing.
The alleged victim (BR) was a subordinate and former coworker; after limited social contact following deployment, they went on two dinners; BR testified she had no romantic interest and went to provoke jealousy in her boyfriend.
During the second visit to BR’s apartment, BR testified the appellant forcibly kissed, restrained, removed her clothing, placed his forearm on her chest, and penetrated her vaginally despite her vocal and physical resistance; she fled to the bathroom, texted friends stating “he raped me,” and later reported to the hospital where a SANE documented injuries consistent with penetrative trauma.
The appellant argued factual insufficiency on appeal, pointing to inconsistencies between BR’s trial testimony and her statements to the SANE and other witnesses, and other minor factual discrepancies.
The convening authority approved a sentence of six months’ confinement, reduction to E-6, and a dishonorable discharge; the Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed factual sufficiency de novo.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the sexual-assault conviction is factually insufficient	BR’s testimony is not credible due to inconsistencies with SANE report and witness statements, undermining proof beyond a reasonable doubt	Despite minor inconsistencies, BR’s testimony was consistent on lack of consent and was corroborated by contemporaneous texts, witness observations, and SANE findings	Court found the evidence, taken as a whole, proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the findings and sentence

United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (describes appellate court’s de novo factual-sufficiency review and framework)
United States v. Rankin, 63 M.J. 552 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (explains the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in appellate factual-sufficiency review)
United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987) (addresses standard for appellate review of factual sufficiency)
United States v. Cole, 31 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1990) (confirms appellate role to judge witness credibility and controversies of fact)