United States v. Williams
201500296
| N.M.C.C.A. | Mar 17, 2017Background
- Appellant (a noncommissioned officer) and two Marines drove two 18‑year‑old female college freshmen around Honolulu, supplied hard alcohol, and later stayed in a hotel room where multiple sexual encounters occurred. Two victims are H.I. and R.W.
- Evidence at trial: R.W. had sex with the appellant while heavily intoxicated and later vomited; appellant and LCpl Gardner switched beds and LCpl Gardner later had sex with R.W.; H.I. observed the appellant take a flash photograph of R.W. while R.W. was unconscious; appellant deleted the photo.
- Charges tried: conspiracy to commit sexual assault (Art. 81), violation of a lawful general order (Art. 92), indecent recording of a private area (Art. 120c), adultery and fraternization (Arts. 134), among others; some Article 120 charges were acquitted or dismissed at trial.
- Members convicted appellant of conspiracy, violating a lawful general order, indecent recording, adultery, and fraternization; sentence approved: 3 years confinement, reduction to E‑1, bad‑conduct discharge.
- Appellant raised four original assignments of error (legal and factual sufficiency for certain convictions; sentence severity/disparity; confinement‑credit claim; constitutional challenge to adultery) and a supplemental AOE on reasonable‑doubt instruction. The Court set aside only the fraternization conviction and affirmed the rest and a reassessed sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & factual sufficiency — Conspiracy (Art. 81) | No proof of an agreement to have LCpl Gardner sexually assault R.W.; no overt act in furtherance. | Circumstantial evidence (encouraging LCpl Gardner, bed switch, offer to others, silence to victim) shows mutual understanding and overt act (Gardner’s intercourse). | Affirmed. Evidence legally and factually sufficient for conspiracy. |
| Legal & factual sufficiency — Indecent recording (Art. 120c) | No photo produced; witnesses didn’t see an indecent picture; witness said R.W. was dressed. | Circumstantial proof (witnesses saw phone flash, R.W. unconscious/naked later, appellant deleted photo) suffices. | Affirmed. Circumstantial evidence legally and factually sufficient. |
| Legal & factual sufficiency — Fraternization (Art. 134) | Relationship did not violate custom or prejudice good order and discipline. | Prosecution relied on customary prohibition analogies and Carter precedent. | Reversed. Specification defective for failing to give notice because charging language recited "noncommissioned officers" (who are enlisted) and thus did not state a cognizable offense under Article 134 as pled; conviction set aside. |
| Sentence appropriateness / disparity with co‑accused (LCpl Gardner) | Appellant's 3‑year sentence is inappropriately severe compared to Gardner’s ~24 months. | Sentences differ for rational reasons: different trials, plea agreement, relative culpability, rank, control of events. | Denied relief. Sentence not highly disparate; rational basis exists. Reassessed sentence (after dismissing fraternization) affirmed as appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harman, 68 M.J. 325 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (conspiracy may be inferred from conduct and need not be formal)
- United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987) (legal and factual sufficiency standards)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional standard for legal sufficiency)
- United States v. Roberts, 59 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (circumstantial evidence can sustain convictions)
- United States v. Carter, 23 M.J. 683 (N.M.C.M.R. 1986) (fraternization analysis under service custom in specific officer‑enlisted context)
- United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (standard for sentence disparity review)
- United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (guidance for appellate sentence reassessment)
- United States v. Moran, 65 M.J. 178 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (destruction of evidence as consciousness of guilt)