U.S. v. Csiti, 85 M.J. 414

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 120 - Rape and Sexual Assault Generally Offenses on/after 1 Jan 2019 › (b) Sexual Assault

1. in this case, the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that the victim was incapable of consenting a sexual act due to impairment because of alcohol where the record contains evidence that the victim drank before going to a restaurant, that she drank more at the restaurant, that she vomited, that she could not drive herself home, that she drank more when she returned home, that she had difficulty sitting on a chair, and that she could not form memories; furthermore, the accused observed the victim's condition before the sexual act, he thought she was drunk, and he apologized for performing the sexual act on her when she was in that condition; drawing every reasonable inference from this evidence in favor of the government, a rational factfinder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to impairment by alcohol and also could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's condition was known or reasonably should have been known by the accused; accordingly, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the sexual assault conviction

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Factual sufficiency

1. when an appellant asks an appellate court to review the factual sufficiency of evidence, the appellant asks the appellate court to decide for itself whether the evidence presented at trial proves the elements of an offense; this is not a matter of law but is instead a matter of fact; in assessing the factual sufficiency, the appellate court must decide what the facts are, as opposed to interpreting the law or deciding how the law applies
2. in an appeal of a finding of guilty of a criminal offense, the degree of deference accorded to a lower court's findings by the CCA is not necessarily greater under the amended Article 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ, because the degree of deference depends on the evidence at issue
3. in this case, even if the CCA erroneously interpreted and applied the amended factual sufficiency standard under Article 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ, any misconception was harmless where the CCA expressly stated that the significance of the credibility of particular witnesses or testimony will vary depending on the circumstances of the case; there was nothing in the CCA's opinion to indicate an abuse of discretion by the CCA in determining what deference to give to the court-martial with respect to any of the evidence
4. although it may be helpful for a CCA to explain its reasoning when addressing an issue, CCAs are not required to state their reasoning for their decisions

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. Article 67(c)(4), UCMJ, provides that CAAF shall take action only with respect to matters of law; based on that provision, CAAF does not have statutory authority to review the factual sufficiency of the evidence
2. CAAF is permitted to decide whether a CCA has followed the requirements of Article 66, UCMJ, in conducting a factual sufficiency review because compliance with a statute is a matter of law
3. CAAF may review the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding that an appellant is guilty of an offense
4. CAAF reviews a CCA's interpretation of Article 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ, de novo because that is a question of law

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

1. the question whether CAAF has statutory authority to decide whether a conviction is factually sufficient under Article 67(c)(1)(C), UCMJ, is addressed de novo because it is a matter of statutory interpretation
2. an appellate court decides questions of legal sufficiency de novo
3. evidence is legally sufficient if any rational factfinder could have found all essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
4. in conducting a legal sufficiency review, an appellate court must draw every reasonable inference from the evidence of the record in favor of the prosecution
5. CAAF reviews a CCA's interpretation of Article 66(d)(1)(B), UCMJ, de novo because that is a question of law

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

1. when Congress acts to amend a statute, courts must presume it intends its amendment to have real and substantial effect
2. unless the text of a statute is ambiguous, the plain language of a statute will control unless it leads to an absurd result