United States v. Stewart
2012 CAAF LEXIS 258
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Stewart was convicted at general court-martial of aggravated sexual assault under Article 120(c)(2).
- The sole specification was severed into two allegations: Specification 1—AN was substantially incapacitated; Specification 2—AN was substantially incapable of declining participation.
- The military judge instructed the jury that the same definitions applied to both specifications and that conviction could be reached on one specification or the other or their lesser included offenses.
- The members found Specification 1 not guilty and Specification 2 guilty.
- The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the pre-trial Article 39(a) hearing error harmless and that the evidence supported substantial incapacity to decline participation.
- The court reversed, set aside the findings and sentence, and dismissed the specification and charge with prejudice, because the conviction relied on conduct the members had found not guilty of, under the unique procedural framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution can disprove an affirmative defense after a preponderance finding | Stewart argues Prather prevents post-preponderance rebuttal. | Government contends defenses and liability theories are distinct and not duplicative. | Issue not reached; decision limited to Issue II. |
| Whether the CCA could affirm guilt while members found not guilty on the same conduct | Stewart argues double jeopardy and inconsistent factual findings. | Government contends separate theories permit separate findings. | Decision reversed; guilty finding impermissibly based on conduct not guilty of. |
| Whether prelim Article 39(a) burden-shifting instruction was prejudicial | Stewart argues error in requiring defense proof pre-trial. | Government defends procedure as admissible, harmless if any. | Not addressed on the merits; resolution deferred to Issue II. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (ambiguous findings cannot be reviewed for factual sufficiency when several acts could underlie the conviction)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (double jeopardy protects against second prosecution after acquittal)
- United States v. Wilson, 67 M.J. 423 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (CCA may not review facts where findings are ambiguous or contradict initial findings)
- United States v. Smith, 39 M.J. 448 (C.M.A. 1994) (double jeopardy limits factual review when inconsistent verdicts arise)
- United States v. Prather, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (discusses burden shifting and legal impossibility principles; relevant to issue framing)
- United States v. Jackson, 7 C.M.A. 67, 21 C.M.R. 193 (1956) (affirms that consistency in verdicts is not always required; however, impacts on review of findings)