United States v. Vanhise
ACM 38882
| A.F.C.C.A. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Appellant, a service member, met EB online, coerced her (age 15) into creating and providing sexually explicit videos including bestiality, threatened dissemination, and later engaged in oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her.
- Appellant also met BM at a base fitness center and, after several meetings in his on-base dormitory, anally raped BM when she was 16.
- At a general court-martial the military judge convicted Appellant of multiple child sexual assault offenses, possession/transmission of child pornography, and rape; sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge, 46 months’ confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E-1; convening authority approved.
- On appeal Appellant raised (1) a four‑day post-trial processing delay beyond the 120‑day Moreno standard and sought sentence relief under Tardif/Gay, and (2) that the SJA improperly solicited/considered a victim-impact/parental statement from EB’s parents who Appellant argued were not "victims" under Article 6b.
- The court also considered (without briefing) other potential issues (speedy trial under Article 10, search authorization probable cause, limited nondisclosure of one page of BM’s mental-health records, and factual sufficiency of the rape conviction) and found no prejudicial error.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-trial processing delay (trial to convening-authority action exceeded 120 days by 4 days) | Four-day violation of Moreno presumption; requests modest sentence relief under Tardif to deter delay | Delay was minimal, largely administrative (transcription/reviews), later phases timely, no prejudice | Delay was facially unreasonable but not a due-process violation; under Article 66(c)/Tardif no relief warranted given minimal excess, lack of prejudice, and overall processing timeline |
| SJA solicitation/consideration of EB parents’ statement | Submission of parents’ statement was improper because parents are not "victims" under Article 6b; its inclusion prejudiced Appellant’s clemency process | SJAs did not solicit the family statement; even if submitted, it was served on defense, who had opportunity to respond; such family submissions are generally proper for convening authority consideration | No error. Statement properly served; defense responded; no colorable showing of prejudice; convening authority’s discretion preserved |
| Disclosure of BM’s mental-health records (one page withheld after in camera review) | Not briefed but raised as potential issue — defense could have used records at sentencing | Military judge disclosed all but one page and allowed extensive cross-examination; no prejudice | No abuse of discretion; failure to disclose the one page did not prejudice Appellant |
| Factual/legal sufficiency of rape conviction (BM) | Raised as potential issue — argues conviction insufficient | Military judge’s findings supported by evidence | Conviction legally and factually sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Tardif v. United States, 57 M.J. 219 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (court’s authority to grant sentence relief for post-trial delay)
- Moreno v. United States, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (establishes presumption of unreasonable post-trial delay benchmarks)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
- Toohey v. United States, 60 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (prejudice requirement and public perception standard in post-trial delay due process analysis)
- Gay v. United States, 74 M.J. 736 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (factors guiding Tardif relief analysis)
- Dunbar v. United States, 31 M.J. 70 (C.M.A. 1990) (administrative delay in forwarding record is least defensible)
- Scalo v. United States, 60 M.J. 435 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (plain-error standard for post-trial recommendation errors; low threshold for showing material prejudice)