United States v. Private E1 ANTHONY v. SANTUCCI
ARMY 20140216
| A.C.C.A. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Appellant Pfc. Anthony V. Santucci was tried by a general court-martial and convicted of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, assault consummated by a battery, adultery, and other offenses; sentence included 20 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
- Two victims: JM (April 2013) alleged being drugged/intoxicated, pushed onto a bed, and sexually assaulted; Santucci admitted intercourse but claimed consent and was acquitted of sexual assault of JM.
- TW (July 2013) alleged severe physical violence, choking, slapping, vaginal and anal rape; medical evidence documented bruises, teeth marks, and rectal redness; Santucci admitted vaginal and anal intercourse, claimed rough consensual sex.
- At trial the military judge, without objection, gave a Mil. R. Evid. 413 instruction allowing the jury to consider the admitted rape of TW as propensity evidence regarding JM’s allegation; no reciprocal instruction was given.
- Defense requested a mistake-of-fact instruction for consent; the judge instructed on mistake of fact for sexual-assault and forcible-sodomy specifications but not for the rape specification; Santucci was convicted of rape and forcible sodomy concerning TW.
- On appeal the court found: the Mil. R. Evid. 413 instruction was improper under United States v. Hills but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; omission of a mistake-of-fact instruction for the rape specification was error but harmless; one specification (sexual assault of TW) was an unreasonable multiplication of charges and was conditionally dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/use of Mil. R. Evid. 413 propensity instruction | Gov't: instruction proper to allow consideration of rape of TW as propensity evidence regarding JM | Santucci: improper to use alleged conduct (TW) as propensity evidence against other charge (JM) | Instruction was improper under Hills but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions/sentence unaffected |
| Failure to instruct on mistake of fact for rape specification | Gov't: no prejudice because evidence showed lack of consent and intoxication | Santucci: judge should have given mistake-of-fact instruction for rape | Omission was legal error (Willis) but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence of nonconsent |
| Unreasonable multiplication of charges (rape and sexual assault of TW) | Gov't: charging choices may be justified by proof exigencies | Santucci: convictions unreasonably exaggerate criminality; multiplicative charging | Court found unreasonable multiplication as to one specification (sexual assault of TW) and conditionally set aside and dismissed that specification |
| Sentence reassessment after dismissal | Gov't: remaining convictions justify original sentence | Santucci: dismissal affects sentencing landscape | Court reassessed under Winckelmann and Sales and affirmed sentence as not inappropriately severe |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (propensity instruction cannot treat an accused’s alleged conduct as proof of propensity while presuming innocence)
- United States v. Willis, 41 M.J. 435 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (mistake-of-fact instruction required when evidence raises honest, reasonable belief in consent)
- United States v. Chandler, 74 M.J. 674 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (failure to instruct on an affirmative defense is constitutional error reviewed for harmlessness)
- United States v. Elespuru, 73 M.J. 326 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (governs multiplicity and charging choices in military prosecutions)
- United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (courts consider whether convictions unreasonably exaggerate criminality)
- United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (standards for sentence reassessment on appeal)