United States v. Wagner, 202000124

On 9 November 2017, Petty Officer QM2 Mast and three shipmates shared a hotel room in Sasebo, Japan; Appellant Jose E. Wagner (a previously unknown guest) was present that night.
QM2 Mast testified Appellant pushed her onto a bed, pulled down her pants, lay on top of her, and penetrated her despite her verbal and physical protests; she later filed a restricted sexual assault report and sought medical care the next day.
Two fellow sailors (GM2 Sierra and GM3 Romeo) were sleeping in the room and awakened during the incident; both testified to hearing QM2 Mast tell Appellant to stop and to hearing sounds consistent with sexual intercourse, though their accounts conflicted with each other and with the victim on some details (clothing, who accompanied whom, level of intoxication).
Appellant disputed the allegations at trial and argued the encounter was consensual; he also gave inconsistent statements (denying knowledge, then seeking an STI test claiming sex with a local).
A general court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of sexual assault by causing bodily harm under Article 120(b)(1)(B), UCMJ (2012); sentence included reduction, hard labor without confinement, and a dishonorable discharge.
On appeal Appellant’s sole assignment of error was factual insufficiency; the majority affirmed the findings and sentence, while Judge Starita dissented, concluding the evidence did not exclude a fair, rational hypothesis of consensual sex and fabrication.

Issue	Prosecution's Argument	Appellant's Argument	Held
Factual sufficiency of the evidence to support conviction for sexual assault by causing bodily harm	Victim’s testimony corroborated by two independent eyewitnesses who heard protests and sounds of intercourse; inconsistencies were immaterial and outweighed by corroborative evidence — proof beyond a reasonable doubt	Record contains material inconsistencies (states of dress, who accompanied whom, conduct after the incident), intoxication, delayed/limited reporting, and a plausible hypothesis that sex was consensual and later recanted to protect a marriage	Majority: Affirmed — after weighing the record de novo the evidence was factually and legally sufficient; the dissent would set findings aside
Application of the “fair and rational hypothesis” / reasonable-doubt standard to conflicting testimony	Corroboration by independent witnesses and the sequence of events permit inference of nonconsent; alternative hypotheses are unreasonable given the totality of evidence	The conflicts permit at least one fair, rational hypothesis (drunken consensual sex then fabrication) that creates reasonable doubt	Majority: alternative hypotheses insufficient to create reasonable doubt; Dissent: alternative hypothesis is a fair and rational one that requires setting aside the findings

United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (describes de novo appellate review for factual sufficiency and the "fresh, impartial look" standard)
United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987) (addresses appellate review principles for weighing evidence)
United States v. Meeks, 41 M.J. 150 (C.A.A.F. 1994) (explains reasonable doubt and the "fair and rational hypothesis" concept)
United States v. Rankin, 63 M.J. 552 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (addresses evidentiary and sufficiency considerations in sexual-assault cases)