United States v. Specialist SALVADOR JIMENEZ-VICTORIA
2016 CCA LEXIS 549
| A.C.C.A. | 2016Background
- Appellant (Spc. Salvador Jimenez-Victoria) was convicted at general court-martial of one specification each of sexual assault and abusive sexual contact by causing bodily harm in violation of Article 120, UCMJ; sentenced to BCD and 18 months confinement.
- Incident: while sharing a hotel room at Myrtle Beach with PFC AH, she was awakened twice — first to unwanted kissing and breast touching (she told him to stop and threatened him with a knife), then to sexual intercourse in which appellant was on top and ejaculated; she testified she tried to push him off unsuccessfully.
- PFC AH immediately sent texts and told friends and an ex‑boyfriend, reported to NCOs and law enforcement, and underwent a rape exam; she also made a pretext phone call to appellant in which he said he thought she was awake and claimed he "didn't mean to hurt you. I want to be your friend."
- Appellant testified the sex was consensual and that PFC AH was awake. The military judge convicted contrary to appellant’s pleas.
- On appeal under Article 66(c), UCMJ, the Army CCA performed independent factual- and legal-sufficiency review and affirmed the findings and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Factual sufficiency of convictions | Evidence (victim's testimony, contemporaneous texts/reports, rape exam, pretext call) proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Victim lacked consent; appellant insists sex was consensual and challenges credibility | Affirmed: fresh, impartial review finds evidence legally and factually sufficient |
| Improper judicial comments in post-trial "bridging the gap" session | N/A (prosecution did not seek relief) | Appellant alleges military judge revealed deliberative impressions of witness credibility | Court cautioned judges that such comments invade deliberative privilege but declined to grant relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal-sufficiency standard)
- Washington v. United States, 57 M.J. 394 (standard for appellate factual-sufficiency review)
- Nerad v. United States, 69 M.J. 138 (scope and limits of CCA Article 66(c) authority)
- United States v. Phillips, 70 M.J. 161 (application of Jackson standard in military context)