U.S. v. Teffeau, 58 M.J. 62

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Right to Present a Defense

1. fundamental due process demands that an accused be afforded the opportunity to defend against a charge before a conviction on the basis of that charge can be sustained; few constitutional principles are more firmly established than a defendant’s right to be heard on the specific charges of which he is accused

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 107 - False Official Statements Pre-2019 offenses

1. Article 107, UCMJ, punishes any person subject to the UCMJ, who, with intent to deceive, makes a false official statement knowing it to be false; a statement is "official" if that statement is "made in the line of duty;" the definition of "official" does not mean that the President intended to limit "line of duty" in this context to the meaning those words may have in other, non-criminal contexts; in fact, the Court has recognized that the scope of Article 107, UCMJ, is more expansive than its civilian counterpart, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, because the primary purpose of military criminal law – to maintain morale, good order, and discipline – has no parallel in civilian criminal law
2. statements made by appellant to civilian police officers were official where they concerned an incident and investigation that bore a direct relationship to his military duties and status
3. any absolute rule that statements to civilian law enforcement officials can never be official within the meaning of Article 107, UCMJ, is rejected; any such construction of Article 107, UCMJ, is unreasonably restrictive in light of the unique purposes of Article 107, UCMJ, and military criminal law

Trial Stages: Merits: Findings

1. variance between pleadings and proof exists when evidence at trial establishes the commission of a criminal offense by the accused, but the proof does not conform strictly with the offense alleged in the charge; the MCM anticipates the potential for a variance by authorizing findings by exceptions and substitutions; but findings by exceptions and substitutions may not be used to substantially change the nature of the offense or to increase the seriousness of the offense or the maximum punishment for it
2. minor variances, such as the location of the offense or the date upon which an offense is allegedly committed, do not necessarily change the nature of the offense and in turn are not necessarily fatal; where, however, an appellant can demonstrate that a variance is material and that he or she was prejudiced, the variance is fatal and the findings thereon can not stand
3. prejudice can arise from a material variance in a number of ways: appellant may show that the variance puts him at risk of another prosecution for the same conduct; and appellant may show that his due process protections have been violated where he was misled to the extent that he has been unable adequately to prepare for trial, or where the variance at issue changes the nature or identity of the offense and he has been denied the opportunity to defend against the charge
4. to the extent that the Court's opinion in United States v. Allen, 50 M.J. 84 (C.A.A.F. 1999) could be read to require that appellant must show both that he or she was misled and that the variance put appellant at risk of another prosecution, the Court now makes it clear that a dual showing is not required and that these are alternative forms of demonstrating error
5. where a conviction is predicated upon a different incident than the one originally alleged in the specification, such a conviction violates due process; prejudice flows from any material variance that changes the very nature of the offense in issue and impacts upon an accused’s ability to defend against the charge against him; when a material variance deprives an accused of the fundamental right to due process, he has been prejudiced