United States v. Payne
2014 CAAF LEXIS 18
| C.A.A.F. | 2014Background
- Payne was convicted by a general court-martial of attempting to persuade a minor to create child pornography and related offenses, plus misuse of a government computer, with a sentence including confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
- The U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence in an unpublished opinion.
- The issue on review was whether the military judge properly instructed the members on the elements of Charge I, Specification 4 (attempt to persuade a minor to create child pornography).
- The military judge gave instructions on the elements but did not read the statutory elements of Article 80 (Attempts) for Specification 4 and defined a 'serious request' instead of a 'substantial step'.
- Defense counsel objected generally to the instructions but did not specify which elements or specifications; the court treated the objection as waived absent plain error.
- The court held that the omission of some elements was plain and obvious error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Neder v. United States, given overwhelming evidence and that the error was uncontested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the instructions on Specification 4 properly stated the elements of attempt | Payne argues the judge omitted elements, failing to instruct on all elements of attempt. | Government contends tailored instructions sufficed for this unique charge combining federal and military law. | Omission was plain error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (omission of an element may be tested for harmless error)
- United States v. Glover, 50 M.J. 476 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (harmless-error approach governs instructional omissions)
- United States v. Mance, 26 M.J. 244 (C.M.A. 1988) (omission of an element may be structural error)
- United States v. Upham, 66 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (applies Neder harmless-error standard to instruction errors)
- United States v. Datz, 61 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (advances plain-error preservation and argument requirements)
- Zapata v. United States, 546 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2008) (general objections may be insufficient to preserve specific errors)
- United States v. Maynulet, 68 M.J. 374 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (standard of review for instructional error is de novo)
- United States v. Tunstall, 72 M.J. 191 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (plain-error standard for trial-level objections to instructions)