U.S. v. Bright, 66 M.J. 359

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 120 - Rape and Carnal Knowledge Pre-2019 offenses

1. under Article 120(a), UCMJ, any person who commits an act of sexual intercourse, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape; the essential elements of rape are (1) that the accused committed an act of sexual intercourse, and (2) that the act of sexual intercourse was done by force and without consent
2. force and lack of consent are separate elements of rape but there may be circumstances in which the two elements are so closely intertwined that both elements may be proved by the same evidence; force can be actual or constructive; in determining whether force and lack of consent occurred, the court-martial must consider the totality of the circumstances presented in the case
3. proof that an alleged victim of rape physically resisted the accused is not needed to support a finding of lack of consent as an element of rape; a lack of consent can be manifested by the victim in a number of ways other than physical resistance; for example, the victim’s repeated verbal rejections may be enough to establish that the members could reasonably have found or inferred beyond a reasonable doubt the element of lack of consent
4. consent to sexual intercourse may not be inferred if resistance would have been futile, where resistance is overcome by threats of death or great bodily harm, or where the victim is unable to resist because of the lack of mental or physical faculties
5. in this case, the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction of appellant, a drill sergeant, for raping a female trainee on three occasions, where the record was devoid of any evidence showing that the trainee manifested a lack of consent or took any measures to resist sexual intercourse with appellant or that her resistance would have been futile or was overcome by threats of death or great bodily harm

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. legal sufficiency is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo; the test for legal sufficiency is whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any reasonable factfinder could have found all the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
2. in resolving questions of legal sufficiency, an appellate court is bound to draw every reasonable inference from the evidence of record in favor of the prosecution