United States v. Specialist CEY BRISTOL J. WILLIAMS
2016 CCA LEXIS 195
| A.C.C.A. | 2016Background
- Appellant (Spc. Cey Bristol J. Williams) was convicted at general court-martial of multiple sexual offenses, including seven indecent-exposure specifications (five at issue involved showing or sending digital images of his erect penis).
- In four incidents, appellant showed victims a stored digital photo on his cell phone; in one incident he sent a photo as a text attachment. Appellant was clothed when he displayed/sent the images.
- Defense moved to dismiss indecent-exposure specifications (R.C.M. 907 and later 917), arguing that showing a photograph/digital image does not constitute an "exposure" of genitalia under Article 120(n) or Article 120c(c), UCMJ; military judge denied both motions.
- On appeal the Army Court of Criminal Appeals addressed whether "exposed" includes showing photographs/digital images or transmitting them electronically. The court found the term ambiguous as applied and examined congressional intent and statutory context.
- The court dismissed one Article 120(n) specification and four Article 120c(c) specifications for legal insufficiency (resolving ambiguity in favor of appellant), affirmed the remaining convictions, reassessed the sentence, and reduced confinement to six months and fifteen days with a bad-conduct discharge and reduction to E-1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "expose" in Article 120(n) and Article 120c(c) includes showing or sending a photograph/digital image of genitalia | The statutes cover displays of genitalia accomplished via images/technology; showing a photo or sending it is an exposure to the victim | Showing or sending a photograph is not an exposure of actual genitalia; "expose" requires temporal/physical presence of live body parts | The court held "expose" is ambiguous and, on statutory context and rule of lenity, dismissed one Article 120(n) spec and four Article 120c(c) specs as legally insufficient |
| Whether convictions should stand and sentence reassessed given dismissed specifications | Government contended remaining convictions and sentencing by members support affirmance and no dramatic penalty landscape change | Defense argued convictions for those specs were legally insufficient and should be dismissed; if dismissed, sentence must be reassessed | Court affirmed remaining findings, dismissed the noted specs, applied Winckelmann factors, and reassessed sentence downward accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Graham, 56 M.J. 266 (C.A.A.F.) (explains purpose of indecent-exposure laws and concept of "drawing attention")
- United States v. Ferguson, 68 M.J. 431 (C.A.A.F.) (addressed live webcam transmission of actual genitalia; distinguishable from displaying stored images)
- United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F.) (factors for sentence reassessment on appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes legal sufficiency standard)
- Loughrin v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2384 (canon: different statutory wording in contemporaneous provisions implies different Congressional intent)