U.S. v. Wells, 85 M.J. 154

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. it is well established that conviction of a criminal offense under the Constitution requires proof of every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
2. the use of conclusive presumptions to establish the elements of an offense is unconstitutional because such presumptions conflict with the presumption of innocence and invade the province of the trier of fact

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134: General Article Offenses on/after 1 Jan 2019

1. Article 134, UCMJ, creates three different types of crimes, commonly referred to as Clauses 1, 2, and 3 offenses; clause 1 offenses involve disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces; clause 2 offenses involve conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; and clause 3 offenses involve noncapital crimes or offenses which violate federal law, including law made applicable through the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Art. 134 - Miscellaneous -- Clause 1, Clause 2, or Clause 3 Offenses on/after 1 Jan 2019

1. Article 134, UCMJ, creates three different types of crimes, commonly referred to as Clauses 1, 2, and 3 offenses; clause 1 offenses involve disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces; clause 2 offenses involve conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; and clause 3 offenses involve noncapital crimes or offenses which violate federal law, including law made applicable through the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act
2. in this case, for appellant to be found guilty of the offense of extramarital sexual conduct, charged under clause 2 of Article 134, UCMJ, the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant: (1) wrongfully engaged in extramarital conduct with the victim; (2) appellant knew at the time that he was married to someone else; and (3) under the circumstances, the conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces
3. a conviction under a clause 2 service discrediting theory does not require proof of the public's knowledge of an accused's conduct; the focus of clause 2 is on the nature of the conduct, whether the accused's conduct would tend to bring discredit on the armed forces if known by the public; the government need not prove anyone was aware of an accused's conduct or to specifically articulate how the conduct is service discrediting; instead, the government must introduce sufficient evidence of the accused's allegedly service discrediting conduct to support a conviction; whether conduct is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces is a question that depends on the facts and circumstances of the conduct
4. in this case, even though the victim's testimony at trial revealed that her personal opinion of the armed forces was untarnished by appellant's actions, there was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant's conduct under the facts and circumstances would tend to bring the service into disrepute if it were known; appellant's sexual relationship with the victim was neither private nor discreet and therefore tended to bring the service into disrepute; the evidence established that appellant showed a video of his extramarital sexual conduct to others and made it available to the general public to view on a website; as the video depicts appellant engaging in intimate sexual acts with the victim, it was strong evidence of the open or notorious nature of the extramarital conduct; the victim's opinion did not operate to contradict or minimize the service discrediting nature of appellant's conduct but merely reflected the opinion of one person
5. whether any given conduct violates clause 2 is a question for the trier of fact to determine, based upon all the facts and circumstances; it cannot be conclusively presumed from any particular course of conduct

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Trial Presumptions, Inferences

1. the use of conclusive presumptions to establish the elements of an offense is unconstitutional because such presumptions conflict with the presumption of innocence and invade the province of the trier of fact
2. whether any given conduct violates clause 2 is a question for the trier of fact to determine, based upon all the facts and circumstances; it cannot be conclusively presumed from any particular course of conduct

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

1. an appellate court performs a de novo review of legal sufficiency issues
2. legal sufficiency is evaluated by determining whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational factfinder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
3. the use of conclusive presumptions to establish the elements of an offense is unconstitutional because such presumptions conflict with the presumption of innocence and invade the province of the trier of fact

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Stare Decisis

1. when asked to overrule one of an appellate court's precedents, the matter is analyzed under the doctrine of stare decisis
2. stare decisis is the doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again; adherence to precedent is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process
3. applying stare decisis is not an inexorable command, and an appellate court is not bound by precedent when there is a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of a legal rule, or an error in legal analysis
4. in evaluating the application of stare decisis, an appellate court considers whether the prior decision is unworkable or poorly reasoned; any intervening events; the reasonable expectations of servicemembers; and the risk of undermining public confidence in the law