United States v. Staff Sergeant TIMOTHY A. SKAGGS, ARMY 20140099

Appellant, Staff Sergeant Timothy A. Skaggs, was convicted at general court-martial of multiple offenses including rape of a child under 12 (Specification 1, Charge I) and other sexual offenses; sentence included dishonorable discharge, confinement, and reduction in rank.
Trial evidence showed appellant regularly drank heavily during the charged period; both parties and the military judge agreed a voluntary-intoxication instruction was applicable to the Article 120b offenses.
During instructions, the military judge gave a voluntary-intoxication instruction but explicitly tied it only to Specifications 4–7 of Charge I and did not expressly apply it to Specification 1 (rape of a child).
Defense did not object to the omission. After findings were announced, the judge realized the omission, attempted to have the panel reconsider, then concluded reconsideration was improper and ultimately ruled the omission was not plain error.
On appeal, the Army Court reviewed whether the failure to instruct the panel that voluntary intoxication could negate the specific-intent element of Specification 1 was plain error and whether the conviction should stand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether omission of a voluntary-intoxication instruction as to Specification 1 was error	Government: instruction on voluntary intoxication was given and applicable; omission was not plain error	Skaggs: failure to instruct on voluntary intoxication as to specific-intent element of rape was error requiring relief	Court: omission was plain, obvious, and prejudicial; conviction for Spec. 1 set aside and dismissed
Whether panel reconsideration after findings was permissible remedy	Government: judge properly offered reconsideration and later corrected course	Skaggs: reconsideration was improper and inadequate remedy	Court: reconsideration after announcement was not appropriate under R.C.M. 924(a)
Whether error was forfeited by lack of timely objection	Government: appellant forfeited by not objecting; plain-error standard applies	Skaggs: plain error occurred despite forfeiture	Court: applied plain-error review and found error satisfied plain-error prongs
Whether sentence should be reassessed given dismissal of Spec. 1	Government: remaining convictions support sentence or reassessment	Skaggs: dismissal reduces exposure and may require resentencing	Court: reassessed sentence under Winckelmann and reduced confinement to ten years; affirmed remainder of sentence

United States v. Hearn, 66 M.J. 770 (discusses voluntary-intoxication instruction when evidence raises reasonable doubt on specific intent)
United States v. Hensler, 44 M.J. 184 (standard for when voluntary intoxication instruction is mandatory)
United States v. Payne, 73 M.J. 19 (forfeiture of instructional error absent timely objection; plain-error framework)
United States v. Maynard, 66 M.J. 242 (plain-error standard in military courts)
United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (principles for sentence reassessment on appeal)
United States v. Fisher, 21 M.J. 327 (prejudice standard for instructional error)
United States v. Miller, 58 M.J. 266 (military judge's duty to give mandatory and accurate instructions)
United States v. Schroder, 65 M.J. 49 (de novo review of jury instruction issues)