U.S. v. Patterson, 86 M.J. 24

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Charges and Specifications

1. specifications of course should be carefully drafted so that they conform to the anticipated evidence; and if the government's understanding of the evidence changes after a specification has been drafted, the government might seek to change the specification under RCM 603 or withdraw the specification under RCM 604 and then replace it

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. if the government's understanding of the evidence changes after a specification has been drafted, the government could ask the military judge to instruct the panel members on findings by exceptions and substitutions as is permitted under RCM 918

Trial Stages: Merits: Findings

1. if the government's understanding of the evidence changes after a specification has been drafted, the government could ask the military judge to instruct the panel members on findings by exceptions and substitutions as is permitted under RCM 918

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

1. in this case, where the CCA simply found that the government had not proved the facts alleged, this finding was within the CCA's discretion

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

1. in this case, it is within the CAAF's authority to review a CCA's determination of factual insufficiency for application of correct legal principles; at the same time, this authority is limited to matters of law; the CAAF may not reassess a CCA's fact-finding
2. the CAAF has authority to conclude that a CCA has abused its discretion if the CCA has disapproved a finding based on purely equitable factors or because it simply disagrees that certain conduct should be criminal
3. in this case where the CCA held that the evidence was factually insufficient to prove the allegations in the specification because of the discrepancy between the date alleged and the date proved, and where the CCA did not hold that the evidence was factually insufficient based on purely equitable factors or because it simply disagrees that certain conduct should be criminal, the CAAF lacked the authority to review the CCA's determination that the evidence was factually insufficient to prove the facts alleged in the specification at issue

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Remand

1. the remedy for an improperly conducted factual sufficiency review is a remand for a new factual sufficiency review under correct legal principle
2. the CAAF is not authorized to remand a case when a CCA has held that the evidence is factually insufficient to prove the factual allegations of a specification

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

1. in this case, it is within the CAAF's authority to review a CCA's determination of factual insufficiency for application of correct legal principles; at the same time, this authority is limited to matters of law; the CAAF may not reassess a CCA's fact-finding
2. the CAAF has authority to conclude that a CCA has abused its discretion if the CCA has disapproved a finding based on purely equitable factors or because it simply disagrees that certain conduct should be criminal
3. 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