- to the extent that United States v. Morrison, 52 MJ 117 (CAAF 1999), may be viewed as standing for the proposition that (a) intent is not "in issue" in those sexual assault cases where the underlying conduct, standing alone, is overtly sexual in nature, and (b) under such circumstances "intent evidence" automatically fails to survive a MRE 403 analysis or to meet the second prong of the three prong MRE 404(b) evidentiary test, that conclusion is not supported by CAAF's other case law; in a series of precedents over the years, CAAF has held that intent is always at issue in a criminal case—even when the defense chooses not to contest it
- motive evidence is used to demonstrate that the accused committed the criminal acts with which he is charged; intent evidence is used to demonstrate the accused's state of mind when he committed those acts
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.C.14 · Evidence
Intent
5 digested opinions, 2000–2023 Terms
2023 (October Term)
2018 (October Term)
- members are permitted to consider evidence of other acts admitted under MRE 404(b) to prove the requisite intent for an offense
2013 (September Term)
- the government is free to prove appellant’s intent by circumstantial evidence
2011 (September Term)
- intent, like other mental states, can be shown by circumstantial evidence
2000
- a pattern of lustful intent, established in one set of specifications, can be used by factfinders as proof of lustful intent in a different set of specifications
- extrinsic evidence of one crime used to support intent to commit a different crime will possess great probative value if the defendant’s intent is in issue and may be critical to the establishment of the truth as to a disputed issue, especially when that issue involves the actor’s state of mind and the only means of ascertaining that mental state is by drawing inferences from conduct
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 · digest page IIIC14 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).