CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Schloff, 74 M.J. 312
Decided Jul 16, 2015 · No. 15-0294/AR · September 2014 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 3 topics
Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 120 - Rape and Sexual Assault Generally Pre-2019 offenses › (d) Abusive Sexual Contact
- a specification alleging abusive sexual contact by pressing a stethoscope to the breasts of a noncommissioned officer in violation of Article 120, UCMJ, stated an offense because the act of pressing a stethoscope to the victim’s breasts (object-to-body contact) constituted sexual contact as defined by Article 120(g)(2), UCMJ
- the definition of sexual contact under Article 120(g)(2), UCMJ, encompasses both object-to-body contact and body-to-body contact because the ordinary meaning of the word touching as used in the statute means that contact was made either by an object or by a body part
- Congress did not seek to exclude object-to-body contact in a professional setting when it determined the scope of abusive sexual contact as defined under Article 120, UCMJ
Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.
- an appellate court reviews de novo questions of statutory interpretation and whether a specification states an offense
- in the absence of any specific statutory definition of a word in a statute, a court looks to the ordinary meaning of the word
- canons of statutory construction are tools designed to help courts better determine what Congress intended, not to lead courts to interpret the law contrary to that intent; however, these rules of thumb give way when the words of a statute are unambiguous
Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally
- in the absence of any specific statutory definition of a word in a statute, a court looks to the ordinary meaning of the word
- canons of statutory construction are tools designed to help courts better determine what Congress intended, not to lead courts to interpret the law contrary to that intent; however, these rules of thumb give way when the words of a statute are unambiguous
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).