United States v. Specialist SAMUEL E. NEALY III
ARMY 20140029
| A.C.C.A. | Jun 30, 2016Background
- Appellant Specialist Samuel E. Nealy III was convicted at a general court-martial of false official statement (Art. 107), aggravated sexual assault (Art. 120), and forcible sodomy (Art. 125). The military judge merged the aggravated sexual assault with forcible sodomy and dismissed the former for findings.
- The panel sentenced Nealy to a bad-conduct discharge, 90 days confinement, and reduction to E-1; the convening authority approved a bad-conduct discharge, 60 days confinement, and reduction to E-1.
- Charge III (false official statement) alleged Nealy told a CID special agent, "I only performed oral sex on her," which was alleged to be knowingly false and made with intent to deceive.
- Trial evidence included two CID special agents’ testimony, a videotaped interview in which Nealy said the quoted statement, and a written statement from a March 27 interview where Nealy said he "did not remember the details I added to this statement."
- The government presented no independent evidence that Nealy knew the statement was false or that he intended to deceive; the court emphasized that mere failure to remember does not necessarily equal a knowingly false statement.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Charge III and its specification for legal insufficiency, affirmed the remaining convictions, reassessed and affirmed the sentence, and ordered restoration of rights lost solely by the set-aside finding.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Nealy's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of false official statement (Charge III) | Evidence (videotape and later, more detailed-written statement) supports finding Nealy knowingly made a false, deceptive official statement | Nealy lacked recollection; later statement shows omission was not intentional deception — no proof he knew the original was false or intended to deceive | Dismissed for legal insufficiency — prosecution failed to prove knowledge and intent to deceive beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Multiplicity/merger of aggravated sexual assault and forcible sodomy | Prosecution proceeded on both counts | Defense argued multiplicious; court previously found the aggravated sexual assault multiplicitous and merged it into forcible sodomy | Court (trial judge) merged aggravated sexual assault into forcible sodomy and dismissed the merged specification for findings earlier in proceedings |
| Sentence reassessment after dismissal of Charge III | The remaining findings and record support the original punishment; any error is harmless and sentence can be reassessed | Appellant challenged findings; sought relief for erroneous conviction | Court reassessed sentence under Winckelmann and Sales, found sentence appropriate and not less than adjudged, affirmed punishment as executed by the convening authority |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standard for appellate review under Article 66)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987) (legal and factual sufficiency standards in military courts)
- United States v. Humphreys, 57 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (application of sufficiency review principles)
- United States v. Barner, 56 M.J. 131 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (drawing inferences for legal sufficiency in favor of the prosecution)
- United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (standards for sentencing reassessment on appeal)
- United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) (authority for reassessing sentences after setting aside findings)
- United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982) (requirements for submission of matters personally raised by an appellant)