Source: http://caaflog.blogspot.com/2009/04/amended-art-120-constitutional-says.html
Timestamp: 2018-07-19 07:53:12
Document Index: 383274720

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 44', 'Art. 44', 'Art. 120', 'Art. 120']

CAAFlog: Amended Art. 120 Constitutional Says Unanimous, En Banc NMCCA
Amended Art. 120 Constitutional Says Unanimous, En Banc NMCCA
Here is a link to NMCCA's unanimous, en banc opinion in United States v. Neal, __ M.J. ___, No. NMCCA 200800746 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. March 31, 2009) (en banc). Judge Eric Price, writing for a unanimous court, in BLUF format, tells us, "[W]e conclude that in this aggravated sexual contact prosecution, proof of the element of force does not require proof of 'lack of consent,' and that the affirmative defense of consent does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof to the defense. . . . Accordingly, we grant the Government’s interlocutory appeal."
Amazingly the opinion is only 13 pages long and the constitutional analysis doesn't start until page 9. In those 4 short pages, the Court, reversing my friend CDR DeOliveira, finds Art. 120 constitutional, holding that (1) because the "Government is not required to prove 'lack of consent' as an identified or implied element of aggravated sexual contact," there is no burden shifting violation of the Due Process Clause and (2) a saving construction of the statute is in order to avoid the constitutional question of excluding evidence to negate an element of the offense. To avoid the constitutional question raised by interpreting Art. 120 as excluding evidence of lack of consent to negate the element of force in Art. 120, Judge Price writes,
We interpret the words “consent [is] not an issue” as highlighting Congress’ removal of “lack of consent” as an element that must be proven by the Government. Art. 120(r), UCMJ. We also interpret the language “except [it is] an affirmative defense for the sexual conduct in issue in a prosecution under subsection [(e) aggravated sexual contact]” as reflecting establishment of the affirmative defense of consent to identified offenses including “aggravated sexual contact.” Art. 120(r), UCMJ. To be clear, this construction is necessary to ensure the accused due process of law, as the finder of fact must be free to consider relevant, admissible evidence, including evidence going to the affirmative defense of consent, in determining whether there is a reasonable doubt about the sufficiency of the Government’s proof as to the elements of the offense.
I will leave additional editorial and synopsis to CAAFlog tonight.
Posted by Mike "No Man" Navarre at 11:13 AM
Labels: New CCA opinions
No big surprise, just a big disappointment.
Wed Apr 01, 04:54:00 PM EDT
But, where is the "case or controversy" here? Proof on the merits ended, jeopardy had long attached, and it does not appear from the opinion that the Government gave notice of it's intent to appeal prior to the MJ dismissing the charges and discharging the members.
Constitutional double jeopardy [a la Watada versus Art. 44 jeopardy] precludes a retrial.
Wed Apr 01, 06:19:00 PM EDT
I guess I have a lower threshold for absurdity than NMCCA. To me, the new Article 120 is akin to a law saying that jaywalking is crossing a street at any place other than an intersection, when we all know that there are plenty of lawfully designated crosswalks at places other than intersections. The government should have to prove that the accused didn't cross the street lawfully, rather than telling the accused "well, if you have some evidence that there was a crosswalk there, feel free to introduce it." The law should contemplate the existence of crosswalks.
Wed Apr 01, 06:38:00 PM EDT
My contacts on the Hill say that the issue and cases (not just U.S. v. Neal) are being followed very closely by the Armed Services Committees.
Wed Apr 01, 08:32:00 PM EDT
Dew -riddle me this - how can the government give notice that it intends to appeal the dismissal of a charge before the charge is dismissed? As I understand the opinion - the MJ reserved ruling until both sides had rested and then immediately excused the members. Where in time should the notice have been given?
Wed Apr 01, 08:35:00 PM EDT
The judge behaved like a rookie in this case. Dismissing the members and allowing them to speak with counsel immediately after the ruling. Need to vette our judges a little bit closer, I would say.
Wed Apr 01, 09:02:00 PM EDT
Interesting to read the House opinion addressing the old 120 and that lack of consent was an part of the 2d element and then read Neal. I'm a total defense hack, but given the change in the law, I think NMCCA got it right -- I also believe that in our bread and butter cases - alcohol and buyer's remorse, the requirement for the government to prove "substantial incapacity" is harder than the old 120 because the members will want to hear expert testimony on the issue, I also think it's IAC for a DC not make the government give them a consultant to assist in determining capacity.
Wed Apr 01, 09:22:00 PM EDT
Timing! Anytime you're a TC and the MJ "reserves" you need to be on your toes. First, at the end of the Gov'ts case, the gov't should have requested a decision. Waiting until after the Defense "rests" would have been the next logical time to raise the issue. Clearly by that point "consent" was at issue, and thus the issue was "ripe."
Second, the sequence - the MJ "dismissed" because he had first found the Statute unconstitutional. At that point, TC should have moved to adjourn to file the 62 Notice and opposed the dismissal on the basis of not triggering double jeopardy. It was at that point a pure question of law and an adjournment versus dismissal would have avoided the now inevitable double jeopardy issues.
Too many inexperienced TC get lulled by the language of Art. 44 into not thinking or forgetting about Constitutional double jeopardy - that's what Watada's all about.
Wed Apr 01, 09:23:00 PM EDT
Anon 0835 makes a good observation. DP, unfortunately your comments miss the mark this time.
Thu Apr 02, 06:45:00 AM EDT
According to the opinion, the MJ "deferred ruling until after consideration of the evidence necessary to determine if consent was an issue."
That certainly was (or should have been) apparent after the Defense rested - and that's when the TC should have requested a ruling on the facial constitutionality of Art. 120.
Thu Apr 02, 04:25:00 PM EDT
Dale Saran said...
Hey, boys - don't read this decision too broadly. This was a 120(e) case, which is a charge regarding "force". I can see how NMCCA can say that the govt need not prove "without consent" in a force case (imagine simple assault, the govt need not prove "without consent" but it does have the definition of what "unlawful force" is). Force and the aff.def. of consent are not necessarily exact opposites. But "substantial incapacity" (under 120(c)) and consent are.
Fri Apr 24, 01:48:00 PM EDT
Today's Green update
CAAF lifts stay in Webb
Navy Denied En Banc Rehearing in Chessani
Let's honor Chief Judge Baum's memory by repealing...
Yesterday's CAAF decisions
NMCCA reportedly stamps "denied" on government's m...
New Supreme Court habeas and Brady violation case
Remembering Joe Baum
Remembering Kevin Barry
Green capital MEJA prosecution update
Audio of Tuesday's CAAF arguments
Audio of today's CAAF arguments
First day of the Green capital MEJA prosecution
More sad news: former CGCCA Chief Judge Joe Baum p...
Prosecutors in Green case move to prevent defense ...
This week in military justice -- 26 April 2009 edi...
Another Article 2(a)(10) article
Article argues for enhanced criminal accountabilit...
Law review article by Army judge advocate on UCMJ ...
New published sentencing argument decision from CG...
CAAF gives Navy JAG until 15 May to certify Neal
Sad news: CAPT Kevin J. Barry, USCG (Ret.) has pa...
Motion for new trial in Behenna?
SG gets more time to respond to Wuterich cert peti...
New Supreme Court search and seizure case
The cult of Sir Cloudesley Shovell
Second half of the Army Lawyer's criminal law symp...
CAAF adds Aviano oral argument date
CAAF issues new grant
Exciting news: Cox Commission II schedules public...
Wuterich NMCCA Appeal
New Military Justice Blog
Marine Corps Times article on the Foster case
Capital MEJA Case to Resume Apr. 27
Army stops accepting felons and recent drug users
Gov't Asks for En Banc NMCCA Reconsideration in Ch...
Audio of Wednesday's CAAF arguments now up
Master Sergeant Hatley Found Guilty In 2007 Detain...
New military cert petition docketed
Motion to extend time to file certificate of revie...
The audio from today's oral arguments is up
Still ranting: Revisiting the proposal to elimina...
CAAF issues decision distinguishing violation of a...
Court Martial and Trial News
Rant: How can we justify retaining five military ...
HUGE military scholarship news: Professor Baldus ...
This week in military justice -- 11 April 2009 edi...
Military pro se IFP cert petition docketed
Sgt Jermaine Nelson's counsel argues charges shoul...
Navy JAG files certificate for review
AFCCA holds an officer can be convicted for privat...
AFCCA issues published opinion in Harvey
NIMJ Program on Access to Military Dockets
Weemer Acquitted
The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force certif...
As the Gitmo Defense Shop Turns - Kuebler Reinstat...
AFCCA issues published sentence disparity/sentence...
Involuntary Reassignment of Defense Counsel
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy doesn't cer...
Green MEJA proceedings underway
Spring 2009 Military Law Review now available
CAAF holds military judge erred in applying Articl...
CAAF summarily disposes of case presenting disconn...
CAAF posts Judicial Conference materials online
This week in military justice -- 5 April 2009 edit...
Audio for NMCCA's Delgado argument
Military judge reportedly asks DOJ to prosecute Na...
Supremes solicit Solicitor General's response to W...
Gray habeas petition filed
Col Murphy Guilty
2009 Jobs for JAGs program
ACCA axes negligent possession of child pornograph...
Amended Art. 120 Constitutional Says Unanimous, En...