United States v. Talkington
2014 CAAF LEXIS 396
C.A.A.F.2014Background
- Appellant convicted by general court-martial of two specifications of attempted aggravated sexual assault and one specification of attempted abusive sexual contact (Article 80, UCMJ).
- Appellant made an unsworn statement during sentencing acknowledging potential life sex-offender registration and possible employment issues.
- Military judge instructed the panel on how to treat the unsworn statement and indicated that possible sex-offender registration was a collateral consequence not to be weighed in sentencing, while allowing context.
- Defense objected to the instruction as overly limiting; the judge overruled the objection.
- AFCCA affirmed the findings and sentence; on appeal Appellant challenged the sufficiency and the sentencing instruction.
- This court held that the judge did not abuse discretion; Riley is inapplicable to sentencing; collateral consequences can be discussed in unsworn statements but should not drive sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge erred by instructing that sex offender registration is not a matter before the panel | Talkington argues the instruction excludes relevant information | Talkington argues precedent allows contextualization of collateral matters | No abuse; instruction proper and tailored to facts |
| Whether Riley extends to sentencing and bars consideration of sex offender registration as a collateral consequence | Talkington seeks Riley’s reasoning to sentencing | Talkington’s view misapplies Riley to sentencing context | Riley inapplicable; sex offender registration remains collateral in sentencing context |
| Whether the unsworn statement could reference sex offender registration and be properly contextualized by the judge | Talkington refers to collateral matters in unsworn statement | Barrier and Rosato authorize contextual instruction | Appellant could mention; judge had discretion to temper with proper instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrier v. United States, 61 M.J. 482 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (military judge may instruct to ignore collateral information in sentencing)
- Rosato v. United States, 32 M.J. 93 (C.M.A. 1991) (unsworn statements may be used; right is unrestricted but may be tempered by instructions)
- Duncan v. United States, 53 M.J. 494 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (instructions must be tailored to the case; abuse requires erroneous law or misapplication of facts)
- Riley v. United States, 72 M.J. 115 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (plea-context; sex-offender registration treated as collateral consequence, not providence of plea)
- Talkington v. United States, 73 M.J. 212 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (distinguishes sentencing from guilty-plea context regarding collateral consequences)
- McNutt v. United States, 62 M.J. 16 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (courts-martial focus on offense and offender; collateral consequences not sentencing factor)
- Griffin v. United States, 25 M.J. 423 (C.M.A. 1988) (retirement-benefits as direct consequence of sentence; collateral doctrine differs)