U.S. v. Watson, 71 M.J. 54

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 83 - Fraudulent Enlistment, Appointment, or Separation Pre-2019 offenses

1. an applicant commits the offense of fraudulent enlistment when he or she provides false information about matters that would constitute either an absolute bar to enlistment or would constitute a bar to enlistment without a waiver from the service branch
2. the elements of fraudulent enlistment or appointment, Article 83, UCMJ, are: (a) that the accused was enlisted or appointed in an armed force; (b) that the accused knowingly misrepresented or deliberately concealed a certain material fact or facts regarding qualifications of the accused for enlistment or appointment; (c) that the accused’s enlistment or appointment was obtained or procured by that knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment; and (d) that under this enlistment or appointment, that accused received pay or allowances or both
3. the plain language of Article 83 states that an accused must make a knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications; based on this language, the false representation need not concern a matter that would absolutely bar him from the service; such a view would be contrary to the plain language of the statute; an accused violates Article 83 by providing false information about a matter that would preclude him from entry without the service waiving the disqualification
4. by deliberately concealing his inpatient psychiatric treatment from a recruiter when he enlisted in the Marine Corps, appellant satisfied the elements of fraudulent enlistment under Article 83 even though his misrepresentation concerned a matter that could have been waived by the service and was not an absolute bar to enlistment
5. Article 83 applies to a misrepresentation about any disqualifying factors for enlistment, whether established by statute or service regulation; it is not necessary that the applicant know that the truth would bar his enlistment, whether absolutely or absent a waiver; neither is it necessary to know what the ultimate result of the waiver process would have been; it is sufficient that the applicant knows that his answers to questions regarding his qualifications were untruthful by commission or omission

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

1. in this case, although the failure to allege the terminal element in the specifications alleging the offenses of communicating a threat and indecent language under Article 134 was error, the error was not prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights where he admitted in his stipulation of fact that his conduct in each incident was service discrediting, entered into a pretrial agreement and pleaded guilty to the charges, and specifically explained during the plea colloquy why his conduct was service discrediting as to both specifications

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. a court must find a substantial conflict between the plea and the accused’s statements or other evidence in order to set aside a guilty plea; the mere possibility of a conflict is not sufficient
2. in this case, during his guilty plea to fraudulent enlistment, appellant stated in a stipulation of fact that information regarding his psychiatric treatment history was a waivable disqualification, but later stated that it could have potentially disqualified him from enlisting; also, during the plea colloquy, appellant stated that he assumed that his treatment history would be a disqualifying factor or one that would severely hinder his chances of enlistment, but later stated that he believed that it may have impacted his ability to enlist; any inconsistencies in appellant’s stipulation of fact or plea colloquy when he pleaded guilty to fraudulent enlistment did not amount to a substantial conflict requiring further inquiries

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. in this case, although the failure to allege the terminal element in the specifications alleging the offenses of communicating a threat and indecent language under Article 134 was error, the error was not prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights where he admitted in his stipulation of fact that his conduct in each incident was service discrediting, entered into a pretrial agreement and pleaded guilty to the offenses, and specifically explained during the plea colloquy why his conduct was service discrediting as to both specifications

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

1. while an appellate court generally examines a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for abuse of discretion, where the issue appealed involves pure questions of law, it utilizes a de novo review
2. when a statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts, at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd, is to enforce it according to its terms
3. a court must find a substantial conflict between the plea and the accused’s statements or other evidence in order to set aside a guilty plea; the mere possibility of a conflict is not sufficient

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

1. when a statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts, at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd, is to enforce it according to its terms

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: United States Code

1. when a statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts, at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd, is to enforce it according to its terms

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: State Laws / Statutes

1. when a statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts, at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd, is to enforce it according to its terms