U.S. v. Pierce, 70 M.J. 391

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. members must be instructed on all elements of an offense; military judges have substantial discretionary power in deciding on the instructions to give

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Instructions

1. members must be instructed on all elements of an offense; military judges have substantial discretionary power in deciding on the instructions to give

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134 - General Article Pre-2019 offenses

1. clause 3 offenses under Article 134, UCMJ, involve noncapital crimes or offenses which violate Federal law; when alleging a clause 3 violation, each element of the federal statute must be alleged expressly or by necessary implication
2. in this case, appellant was charged with using the Internet to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 USC § 2422(b); in order to be guilty of that offense, an accused must use, inter alia, any facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly entice a minor; this element recognizes that regulating activity under the Commerce Clause provides a means for Congress to create federal crimes
3. the question whether an activity constitutes a facility or means of interstate commerce within the meaning of 18 USC § 2422, which prohibits the use of a facility or means of interstate commerce to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, is a question of law
4. the question whether the Internet was a facility or means of interstate commerce within the meaning of 18 USC § 2422, which prohibits the use of a facility or means of interstate commerce to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, is one of statutory interpretation, a question of law to be answered by the military judge; there is no support for the proposition that it is within the province of the members to either interpret statutory language or to traverse Commerce Clause jurisprudence, as would be necessary to determine whether the Internet was a constitutionally sufficient facility or means of interstate commerce
5. as a point of law, the Internet constitutes a facility or means of interstate commerce within the meaning of 18 USC § 2422, which prohibits the use of a facility or means of interstate commerce to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity
6. the question whether the Internet was used to commit the attempted enticement of a minor in violation of 18 USC § 2422 is one of fact to be decided by the trier of fact; in this case, the members were instructed that they must find that the accused knowingly used the Internet to attempt to entice a minor, there was no error in this instruction, and the evidence on this point was legally sufficient

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Art. 134 - Miscellaneous -- Clause 1, Clause 2, or Clause 3 Pre-2019 offenses

1. clause 3 offenses under Article 134, UCMJ, involve noncapital crimes or offenses which violate Federal law; when alleging a clause 3 violation, each element of the federal statute must be alleged expressly or by necessary implication
2. in this case, appellant was charged with using the Internet to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 USC § 2422(b); in order to be guilty of that offense, an accused must use, inter alia, any facility or means of interstate commerce to knowingly entice a minor; this element recognizes that regulating activity under the Commerce Clause provides a means for Congress to create federal crimes
3. the question whether an activity constitutes a facility or means of interstate commerce within the meaning of 18 USC § 2422, which prohibits the use of a facility or means of interstate commerce to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, is a question of law
4. the question whether the Internet was a facility or means of interstate commerce within the meaning of 18 USC § 2422, which prohibits the use of a facility or means of interstate commerce to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, is one of statutory interpretation, a question of law to be answered by the military judge; there is no support for the proposition that it is within the province of the members to either interpret statutory language or to traverse Commerce Clause jurisprudence, as would be necessary to determine whether the Internet was a constitutionally sufficient facility or means of interstate commerce
5. as a point of law, the Internet constitutes a facility or means of interstate commerce within the meaning of 18 USC § 2422, which prohibits the use of a facility or means of interstate commerce to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity
6. the question whether the Internet was used to commit the attempted enticement of a minor in violation of 18 USC § 2422 is one of fact to be decided by the trier of fact; in this case, the members were instructed that they must find that the accused knowingly used the Internet to attempt to entice a minor, there was no error in this instruction, and the evidence on this point was legally sufficient

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Charges and Specifications

1. clause 3 offenses under Article 134, UCMJ, involve noncapital crimes or offenses which violate Federal law; when alleging a clause 3 violation, each element of the federal statute must be alleged expressly or by necessary implication

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. members must be instructed on all elements of an offense; military judges have substantial discretionary power in deciding on the instructions to give

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

1. whether a specification alleged all elements of an offense and whether instructions were proper are questions of law, which an appellate court reviews de novo