U.S. v. Nicola, 78 M.J. 223

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 120c - Other Sexual Misconduct Pre-2019 offenses › (a) Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, or Broadcasting

1. the offense of indecent viewing has three elements: (1) that the accused knowingly and wrongfully viewed the private area of another person; (2) that said viewing was without the other person’s consent; and (3) that said viewing took place under circumstances in which the other person had a reasonable expectation of privacy
2. evidence in this case that appellant indecently viewed the victim in her barracks room after he removed her clothes was legally sufficient to support the conviction for indecent viewing where (1) the victim was clothed when she entered the barracks room with appellant and another soldier, (2) the other soldier left, and the only two left in the room were appellant and the victim, (3) the victim was later found naked in the shower, and (4) because the victim was very intoxicated and had difficulty with simple actions such as walking and talking, if appellant was untruthful in saying that the victim disrobed herself, the court-martial rationally could have inferred that appellant disrobed her
3. evidence in this case that appellant indecently viewed the victim’s private areas without her consent while she was in the shower was legally sufficient to support the conviction for indecent viewing where (1) the victim testified that appellant had entered the shower when she was sitting naked with her private areas exposed, and (2) appellant testified that the bathroom door was closed, the victim was behind a shower curtain, and she did not invite him to enter; although a viewing done for the purpose of checking on someone’s health and well-being would not necessarily be wrongful, in this case, the court-martial could have disbelieved appellant when he testified that his motivation for entering the shower was merely to check on the victim’s condition, and the panel could have inferred instead that appellant had a wrongful motive

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Corroboration

1. under MRE 304(c)(3), corroboration is not required for a statement made by the accused before the court by which the accused is being tried

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Charges and Specifications

1. under RCM 906(b)(6), appellant could have requested a bill of particulars to obtain more precise information about the government’s theory or theories of liability

Trial Stages: Merits: Trial Procedures › Generally

1. in a criminal trial, the accused has a right to testify; but one risk of testifying, recognized long ago, is that the trier of fact may disbelieve the accused’s testimony and then use the accused’s statements as substantive evidence of guilt in connection with all the other circumstances of the case; in other words, false testimony, knowingly and purposely invoked by the accused, may be used against him

Trial Stages: Merits: Findings

1. under RCM 918(a), a general finding of guilt does not indicate the facts upon which the finding rests
2. in this general court-martial consisting of officer members, appellant could not have requested special findings as to matters of fact because, under RCM 918(b), special findings are authorized only in courts-martial composed of a military judge alone
3. a factfinder may enter a general verdict of guilt even when the charge could have been committed by two or more means, as long as the evidence supports at least one of the means beyond a reasonable doubt

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

1. a finding of guilt is legally sufficient if any rational factfinder, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, could have found all essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt; when applying this test for legal sufficiency, an appellate court is bound to draw every reasonable inference from the evidence of record in favor of the prosecution
2. an appellate court cannot affirm a criminal conviction on the basis of a theory of liability not presented to the trier of fact