Court Opinion

ID: 9837051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:16:07.936011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:20.104250
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in the result):
Even with the Government’s concession at oral argument, I am hesitant to join the majority’s consolidation of the rape offenses. The consolidated specification approved by the majority violates RCM 307(c)(4) and 906(b)(5), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.). Two or more offenses charged in one specification is generally contrary to military pleading practice. See D. Sehlueter, Military Criminal Justice § 6-1(C)(2) at 282-83 (4th ed.1996).
On the sufficieney-of-evidence question, in my view, the evidence warrants affirmance of three specifications of rape under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). This rape victim was appellant’s 15-year-old sister-in-law. The record shows that her mental capacity was that of a 6-year-old. The work schedule of Mrs. Allen, the testimony of the victim, and the doctor’s testimony, when viewed under the lens of Jackson v. Virginia, supra, support the jury’s verdict that the multiple sex offenses occurred during the 6-week window of the pleading.
As to the possible prejudicial variance in this case, appellant knew before trial that he was facing a wide window of time for the three rape specifications by the use of the “on or about” language and the 6-week time period. He also knew the limited ability of his victim to articulate the specific times of the charged crimes. Yet appellant did not ask for a bill of particulars. I find that, under these circumstances, he was not prejudiced in preparing for a fair trial.
Nevertheless, the affirmance of a single specification of rape “on divers occasions” during the entire time period is not an unfair disposition for appellant. See United States v. Mincey, 42 MJ 376, 378 (1995). Accordingly, I concur with the majority’s result in this case.