United States v. Specialist ADRIAN E. SOSA
ARMY 20140869
| A.C.C.A. | Oct 28, 2016Background
- Appellant (Spc. Adrian Sosa) was convicted at a general court-martial of willful disobedience (Article 90) and aggravated assault (Article 128) for sexual activity while knowing he was HIV-positive; sentence approved included a bad-conduct discharge and 12 months confinement.
- Military medical officials notified Sosa and his commander on 8 Aug 2012 that Sosa tested HIV-positive; commander ordered Sosa to disclose status to future partners and to use condoms.
- Victim (Spc. SS) testified they had sex ~5 times between mid‑Sept and early Oct 2012; three acts used condoms (one broke), two acts in shower were unprotected; SS later tested HIV-positive in June 2013 and believed transmission occurred from Sosa.
- Government introduced laboratory testimony confirming Sosa’s HIV-positive status and viral load; a laboratorian witness (Dr. SP) testified beyond her expertise about transmission probabilities (cited a 1-in-256 figure).
- Defense moved to exclude evidence that SS tested HIV-positive (Mil. R. Evid. 402/412/403); the military judge denied the motion. Defense also objected to the transmission-probability testimony. Jury instructions used a pre-Gutierrez definition of “risk” as more than “fanciful, speculative, or remote.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal and factual sufficiency of "means likely" aggravated assault when HIV transmission risk is low | Gov: Evidence (including alleged transmission) supports that unknowing exposure via sex was a "means likely" to cause grievous bodily harm | Sosa: Scientific evidence did not show a risk level meeting the "likely" standard; testimony on transmission was unreliable | Reversed as to aggravated‑assault finding based on means‑likely theory; evidence legally and factually insufficient under Gutierrez standard |
| Admissibility of victim’s HIV-positive status | Gov: SS’s HIV status is relevant to risk and to show exposure; probative for sentencing and guilt | Defense: Highly prejudicial and invited mini‑trial on causation; probative value marginal absent proof Sosa was source | Military judge abused discretion by admitting SS’s HIV status; evidence more prejudicial than probative under Mil. R. Evid. 403 (and 412 concerns) |
| Admissibility of expert testimony on transmission probability by a laboratorian lacking epidemiologic expertise | Gov: Testimony on transmission potential and viral‑load relevance is probative of risk | Defense: Witness disclaimed expertise; probability figures were beyond her scope and unreliable | Court held the transmission‑probability testimony was outside the witness’s expertise and unreliable; military judge erred in admitting it |
| Jury instruction on "risk" for aggravated assault (pre‑Gutierrez wording) | Gov: Instruction adequate; common‑sense application by panel sufficient | Defense: Instruction lowered government’s burden by defining risk as anything more than remote/speculative | Instructional error deprived defendant of due process; not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and contributed to a prejudicial finding |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gutierrez, 74 M.J. 61 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (sets standard for "means likely" aggravated assault involving HIV transmission risk)
- United States v. Keefauver, 74 M.J. 230 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Manns, 54 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (less deference when trial judge fails to articulate reasoning)
- United States v. Tauala, 75 M.J. 752 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2016) (instructional error can be a due process violation requiring harmless‑beyond‑doubt analysis)
- United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (standards for reassessing sentence on appeal)
- United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) (authority on sentence reassessment)