CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Carr, 65 M.J. 39
Decided May 9, 2007 · No. 06-0758/AF · 2007 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 3 topics
Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas
- the military judge did not abuse her discretion in accepting appellant’s guilty pleas to assault consummated by a battery arising out of appellant’s impersonation of a person training to become a gynecologist and his subsequent gynecological exams of female victims, notwithstanding appellant’s contention that the consent of his victims was procured by fraud in the inducement, rather than fraud in the factum, where the plea inquiry amply showed that appellant had neither medical training nor license, that his lies about his qualifications induced his victims to submit to him, and that he performed pretended examinations that he was not qualified or licensed to perform; once the military judge elicited from appellant that he lacked training and qualifications, that was sufficient to render his pleas provident; appellant’s lies amounted to fraud in the factum, not fraud in the inducement
Trial Stages: Appeals: Scope of Review
- an issue is moot if resolving it would not result in a material alteration of the situation for the accused or for the government; mootness is not favored in criminal cases
- an appellate court may reach the merits of the granted issue of the providence of appellant’s pleas of guilty to the lesser included offense of assault consummated by a battery, even though appellant was eventually convicted, in a litigated trial, of the indecent assaults originally charged, if the court cannot determine with certainty what weight the military judge gave the guilty plea, as opposed to the testimony, in finding appellant guilty of the indecent assaults
Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.
- an appellate court will set aside an appellant’s guilty plea only when the record of trial shows a substantial basis in law and fact for questioning the plea; in reviewing the providence of appellant’s guilty pleas, an appellate court considers his colloquy with the military judge, as well any inferences that may reasonably be drawn from it
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).