United States v. Parks, ACM 38867

Background

Appellant, an airman, and victim SrA JS had a "friends with benefits" relationship; tensions arose after Appellant dated another airman and did not disclose it.
On December 1, 2013, Appellant visited JS’s off-base apartment; JS testified she repeatedly refused sex, fought, was pinned and had her pants removed, and Appellant then penetrated her.
JS immediately reported the incident to her roommate, who contacted SARC; JS received a SANE exam and later law enforcement and trial testimony corroborated calls and fresh injuries.
Appellant was tried by officer members, convicted, and sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, 6 months’ confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E‑1.
Appellant raised four main assignments of error: (1) legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence; (2) admission of JS’s statements to the SANE under Mil. R. Evid. 803(4); (3) alleged improper prosecutorial argument at findings; and (4) claimed prejudice from 177‑day post‑trial delay to convening authority action.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Appellant)	Held
1. Legal and factual sufficiency of rape conviction	Evidence (victim testimony, phone records, roommate’s report, physical injuries) proves penetration and unlawful force beyond a reasonable doubt	JS fabricated or mischaracterized events from motive (anger, desire to transfer), challenging credibility	Conviction affirmed; court finds evidence legally and factually sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Admissibility of JS’s statements to SANE under medical‑treatment hearsay exception (Mil. R. Evid. 803(4))	Statements were for medical diagnosis/treatment and admissible	Statements were given primarily to collect evidence and lacked expectation of treatment; admission was error	Military judge abused discretion admitting under 803(4) (failure to assess patient’s expectation), but error harmless because statements were admissible as prior consistent statements (Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B))
3. Prosecutorial argument at findings (multiple alleged improprieties)	Arguments were fair explanations, in‑rebuttal of defense attacks on credibility and inferences from the evidence	Several arguments (vouching, inflaming, misstating law/facts) were improper and prejudicial	No plain error; arguments either proper, fair inferences, or not obviously prejudicial given context and lack of objection
4. Post‑trial delay (177 days to convening authority action)	Delay explained by backlog/transcription and staffing; no bad faith; no extraordinary relief warranted	Presumption of unreasonable delay; seeks day‑for‑day credit	No relief under Article 66(c); after weighing Moreno/Tardif/Gay factors, delay did not warrant additional relief

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F.) (appellate standard for independent factual sufficiency review)
United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A.) (tests for legal and factual sufficiency)
United States v. Edens, 31 M.J. 267 (C.M.A.) (medical‑treatment hearsay exception framework)
United States v. Donaldson, 58 M.J. 477 (C.A.A.F.) (abuse of discretion review; patient expectation analysis for 803(4))
United States v. Cuccuzzella, 66 M.J. 57 (C.A.A.F.) (establishing patient expectation may be shown circumstantially and by clinician testimony)
United States v. Allison, 49 M.J. 54 (C.A.A.F.) (prior consistent statements rule and timing requirement)
United States v. McCollum, 58 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F.) (government’s burden to show non‑constitutional error did not substantially influence findings)
United States v. Berry, 61 M.J. 91 (C.A.A.F.) (four‑part test for harmlessness of erroneously admitted government evidence)
United States v. Frey, 73 M.J. 246 (C.A.A.F.) (limits on prosecutorial argument; members may use common sense)
United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.) (120‑day post‑trial processing standard)
United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F.) (appellate relief for post‑trial delay under Article 66(c))