United States v. Moreno
40511
A.F.C.C.A.May 19, 2025Background
- Appellant, an Air Force member, was convicted by a general court-martial of attempted sexual assault of a child, based on an undercover law enforcement operation where an agent posed as a 14-year-old girl named “Kelly.”
- Over a period of eight days, Appellant exchanged messages with "Kelly," discussing plans to meet, drink alcohol, and have sex; he arranged to meet her at a location on JBSA-Lackland AFB, bringing alcohol and a condom.
- He was apprehended by law enforcement upon arrival at the agreed location with incriminating items in his car and confessed intent to engage in sex and provide alcohol to a minor.
- At trial, Appellant argued lack of intent, voluntary abandonment, and entrapment, but the court found his actions and statements inconsistent with these defenses.
- The court reviewed the conviction for legal and factual sufficiency and addressed claimed errors regarding evidentiary rulings, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and appellate delay.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal/Factual Sufficiency of Conviction | Evidence insufficient, lacked intent; entrapment and voluntary abandonment defenses | Actions, statements, planning show intent; no entrapment or abandonment; verdict supported | Sufficient evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Admission of "Prison" Statement | Statement improperly admitted; prejudicial | Statement relevant as consciousness of guilt, not character evidence | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice |
| Prosecutorial Misconduct | Improper questioning and argument; burden-shifting | Any error was minimal, cured by judge's instructions; no prejudice | No prejudice; relief denied |
| Appellate Delay | Appellate delay unreasonable, possible prejudice | Delay due to Appellant's requests; no demonstrated prejudice | No due process violation; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 77 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2018) (legal sufficiency standard for court-martial convictions)
- United States v. Oliver, 70 M.J. 64 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (trier of fact to resolve evidentiary conflicts and infer ultimate facts)
- United States v. Whittle, 34 M.J. 206 (C.M.A. 1992) (predisposition requirement for entrapment defense)
- United States v. Wilson, 84 M.J. 383 (C.A.A.F. 2024) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Baer, 53 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (contextual review of closing arguments for prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (standard for facially unreasonable appellate delay)