Court Opinion

ID: 9367109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 22:01:49.102724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:57.304830
License: Public Domain

This opinion is subject to revision before publication.

        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                 FOR THE    ARMED FORCES
                       _______________

                     UNITED STATES
                         Appellee

                               v.

           Nicholas R. St. JEAN, Specialist
             United States Army, Appellant

                       No. 22-0129
                 Crim. App. No. 20190663

  Argued November 9, 2022—Decided January 30, 2023

Military Judges: Robert L. Shuck (arraignment), Douglas
   K. Watkins (motions), and Joseph T. Marcee (trial)

For Appellant: Scott R. Hockenberry, Esq. (argued); Cap-
tain Tumentugs D. Armstrong and Daniel Conway, Esq. (on
brief); Major Thomas J. Travers.

For Appellee: Captain Andrew M. Hopkins (argued);
Colonel Christopher B. Burgess and Major Pamela L.
Jones (on brief).

Chief Judge OHLSON delivered the opinion of the Court,
in which Judge SPARKS, Judge MAGGS, Judge HARDY,
and Senior Judge STUCKY joined.
                   _______________
          United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                    Opinion of the Court

  Chief Judge OHLSON delivered the opinion of the
Court.
    Contrary to his pleas, a general court-martial with en-
listed representation convicted Appellant of one specifica-
tion of making a false official statement and one specifica-
tion of sexual assault in violation of Articles 107 and 120,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C.
§§ 907, 920 (2018). The adjudged and approved sentence
included a dishonorable discharge and confinement for five
years. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
(CCA) set aside and dismissed the Article 107, UCMJ,
charge and its specification, affirmed the remaining find-
ings, and reduced the sentence of confinement by two
months. We granted review of the following issue:
      Whether the military judge erred by excluding ev-
      idence under Mil. R. Evid. 412 and by preventing
      the defense from presenting evidence of participa-
      tion and consent during the res gestae of the
      charged sexual assault.
United States v. St. Jean, 82 M.J. 357, 357-58 (C.A.A.F.
2022) (order granting review). We answer the granted is-
sue in the negative and affirm the judgment of the CCA.
                      I. Background
   Appellant met MC shortly after Appellant was assigned
as her unit sponsor at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in early May
2018. On May 4, Appellant, MC, and some fellow soldiers
gathered in a barracks room. After MC consumed alcohol,
Appellant escorted MC to her room and she went to bed.
MC testified that at some point later that night (or in the
early hours of May 5), she woke to Appellant penetrating
her vagina with his penis. Appellant was eventually
charged with sexual assault.
    Before trial, Appellant moved to admit the following ev-
idence pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412:
(1) testimony from Appellant that MC invited Appellant to
her room on May 3, 2018, which resulted in consensual
kissing the day before the alleged assault; (2) testimony

                              2
          United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                    Opinion of the Court

from two witnesses that they saw hickey 1 marks on Appel-
lant the day after the alleged assault; (3) testimony from a
witness stating that she saw MC asleep on a fold-out bed
beside Appellant the day after the alleged assault; and (4)
testimony from Appellant that MC showed Appellant a Po-
laroid picture of her bare buttocks with a bruise and told
Appellant she liked to be spanked.
    During the Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 839(a)
(2018), hearing to discuss the proffered M.R.E. 412 evi-
dence, defense counsel asserted that the hickeys on Appel-
lant’s body were the result of both the prior kissing incident
and the sexual intercourse on the night of the alleged as-
sault. Defense counsel argued that evidence of the prior
sexual activity—the kissing incident—between Appellant
and MC was relevant because it supported Appellant’s po-
sition that the subsequent alleged sexual assault was in
fact consensual. Defense counsel also argued that hickeys
from the purported sexual assault demonstrated that the
encounter was consensual because victims do not “willingly
suck on people’s neck and chest as they are sexually as-
saulting them.”
   A pretrial military judge (hereinafter “the motions
judge”) made an initial oral ruling that evidence Appellant
was seen with hickeys the day after the alleged sexual as-
sault would be res gestae evidence 2—and not M.R.E. 412
evidence—if the hickeys occurred during the course of the
charged offense. The motions judge subsequently issued a
written ruling denying the defense motion as to the testi-
mony about the consensual kissing incident, the hickeys,
the photo, and the spanking comment, but granted the mo-
tion as to the testimony that MC and Appellant were

   1 A hickey is “a temporary red mark or bruise on the skin
(such as one produced by biting and sucking).” Merriam-Webster
Collegiate Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic-
tionary/hickey (last visited Jan. 25, 2023).
   2 Res gestae is defined as “[t]he events at issue, or other
events contemporaneous with them.” Black’s Law Dictionary
1565 (11th ed. 2019).

                              3
          United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                    Opinion of the Court

observed on the same fold-out bed a day after the sexual
assault allegedly occurred.
    In his written ruling, the motions judge found that the
evidence proffered by Appellant did have some relevance as
to consent under M.R.E. 401. He noted that if MC “made
out with” Appellant, gave him hickeys, showed him the
photo of her bare buttocks, and said she liked to be
spanked, then the “evidence has a very slight tendency to
show . . . [MC] might be willing to consent to having sex”
with Appellant. However, the motions judge reiterated his
view of the tenuous relevancy of the evidence, and con-
cluded the evidence was substantially more prejudicial
than probative under M.R.E. 403. Notably, in his ruling ex-
cluding the evidence, the motions judge mentioned the
hickeys but did not distinguish between hickeys that may
have occurred during the alleged sexual assault and those
received during the prior kissing incident.
    At trial, when defense counsel pursued a line of ques-
tioning seemingly designed to elicit testimony regarding
the hickeys, trial counsel objected on M.R.E. 412 grounds.
The military judge—a different judge than the motions
judge (hereinafter “the trial judge”)—conducted a closed
Article 39(a), UCMJ, session. Defense counsel sought to ex-
plain that there were two sets of hickeys, and the hickeys
from the alleged sexual assault constituted res gestae evi-
dence. The trial judge then questioned defense counsel
about whether there was any evidence before the court sug-
gesting that Appellant received a hickey during the alleged
sexual assault rather than only during the consensual kiss-
ing incident. Defense counsel conceded there was no evi-
dence currently before the court suggesting hickeys oc-
curred in the course of the charged offense. The trial judge
next inquired about the evidence defense counsel could
proffer on this point, to which counsel replied: “Your honor,
I can move on from this, and I could possibly readdress it
later if evidence is presented on that.” However, the record
before us does not indicate that defense counsel ever came
back to this issue, and the evidence was never introduced

                             4
          United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                    Opinion of the Court

before the panel. Appellant later was convicted of the sex-
ual assault offense.
    Appellant appealed his conviction to the CCA. In its de-
cision, the CCA did not substantively discuss the issue cur-
rently before this Court, only stating in a footnote that it
gave “full and fair consideration to [A]ppellant’s other as-
signed errors . . . and determin[ed] they warrant neither
discussion nor relief.” United States v. St. Jean, No. ARMY
20190663, 2022 CCA LEXIS 26, at *1 n.1, 2022 WL 135316,
at *1 n.1 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 13, 2022) (unpublished).
                  II. Standard of Review
    “This Court reviews a military judge’s decision to admit
evidence for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Frost,
79 M.J. 104, 109 (C.A.A.F. 2019). “This abuse of discretion
standard is a strict one, calling for more than a mere dif-
ference of opinion—[t]he challenged action must be arbi-
trary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable, or clearly erroneous.”
United States v. Hendrix, 76 M.J. 283, 288 (C.A.A.F. 2017)
(alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted).
                      III. Discussion
    It is worth clarifying that Appellant is challenging the
exclusion of only two pieces of evidence: (A) evidence that
Appellant and MC engaged in consensual kissing the day
before the alleged sexual assault; and (B) evidence that Ap-
pellant was seen with hickey marks the day after the al-
leged assault. The motions judge excluded the consensual
kissing evidence on the basis that it was substantially more
prejudicial than probative under M.R.E. 403. The trial
judge excluded the hickey evidence because Appellant
failed to proffer evidence suggesting Appellant received the
hickeys during the alleged assault.
   We conclude that neither the motions judge nor the trial
judge abused his discretion when ruling on these matters.
Specifically, for the reasons identified below, the motions
judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding evidence of
the prior sexual encounter (i.e., the kissing incident
between Appellant and MC) because exclusion was within

                             5
          United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                    Opinion of the Court

“the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable
facts and the law,” United States v. Miller, 66 M.J. 306, 307
(C.A.A.F. 2008), and the trial judge did not abuse his
discretion in requiring the defense to make a sufficient
proffer before the hickey evidence would be deemed
admissible at trial.
         A. The Prior Consensual Kissing Incident
    Appellant moved to admit evidence under M.R.E. 412
that he and MC “made out” the day before the alleged
sexual assault. The evidence consisted of (1) an affidavit
from Appellant stating as much and (2) testimony from two
witnesses who observed Appellant with hickeys the day
after the alleged assault- The motions judge excluded this
evidence.
    M.R.E. 412 is a rule of exclusion which provides that in
any proceeding involving an alleged sexual offense, evi-
dence of a victim’s sexual behavior or predisposition is not
admissible, subject to three limited exceptions. Appellant
sought to admit the evidence of the prior sexual encounter
(i.e., the kissing incident) under two of those exceptions:
M.R.E. 412(b)(2) and M.R.E. 412(b)(3). M.R.E. 412(b)(2)
makes admissible “evidence of specific instances of a vic-
tim’s sexual behavior with respect to the person accused of
the misconduct, if offered by the accused to prove consent.”
M.R.E. 412(b)(3) makes admissible evidence of other sexual
behavior if its exclusion would violate the accused’s consti-
tutional rights. Generally, this means evidence must be ad-
mitted under M.R.E. 412(b)(3) when the evidence is rele-
vant, material, and favorable to the defense. United States
v. Erikson, 76 M.J. 231, 235 (C.A.A.F. 2017). Appellant
bore the burden of demonstrating that one of these excep-
tions applies. United States v. Carter, 47 M.J. 395, 396
(C.A.A.F. 1998). Importantly, however, evidence falling un-
der either exception is still subject to M.R.E. 403, which
permits a military judge to “exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of
one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the
issues, misleading the members, undue delay, wasting
time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

                             6
           United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                     Opinion of the Court

   Military judges receive wide discretion in conducting
balancing under M.R.E. 403, but military judges’ rulings
receive less deference if they fail to articulate their analysis
on the record. United States v. Collier, 67 M.J. 347, 353
(C.A.A.F. 2009). Appellant urges this Court to afford the
motions judge’s ruling minimal deference because the mo-
tions judge was not particularly clear on the record about
his reasoning. We note, however, that an absence on the
record of a military judge’s reasoning does not—by itself—
provide a basis for finding error. Unless there are contrary
indications, we must assume a military judge properly con-
sidered an accused’s claim consistent with the law. United
States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19, 23 (C.A.A.F. 2012).
    The motions judge here issued a seven-page ruling deny-
ing Appellant’s motion. The motions judge reasonably de-
scribed the nature of the evidence and properly stated the
legal standard for making an admissibility determination
under M.R.E. 403 and M.R.E. 412. He determined the pro-
bative value of the evidence was “very slight,” primarily be-
cause “ ‘making out’ ” was quite dissimilar to the charged
conduct. The military judge then concluded that the evi-
dence’s very slight probative value was substantially out-
weighed by the concerns enumerated in M.R.E. 403, specif-
ically stating that “M.R.E. 403 concerns abound.”
    It is true that the motions judge did not explicitly detail
his M.R.E. 403 concerns for each piece of Appellant’s prof-
fered evidence. However, he did articulate some of his con-
cerns regarding the Polaroid picture and MC’s alleged af-
finity for spanking, noting the “evidence is unfairly
prejudicial in the sense that a factfinder is likely to react
emotionally, rather than logically” and the “evidence could
likely be construed as an invitation by [MC] to be sexually
abused.” Moreover, the motions judge cited M.R.E. 403 and
M.R.E. 412 when denying Appellant’s motion to admit the
evidence of the “ ‘mak[e] out’ ” session. In light of these cir-
cumstances, this Court is not convinced the motions judge’s
ruling was so deficient that it only merits minimal defer-
ence. Accordingly, we will apply the “abuse of discretion”

                               7
          United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                    Opinion of the Court

standard when reviewing the motions judge’s evidentiary
ruling.
    Under the abuse of discretion standard, a military
judge’s ruling will be reversed only if his or her “findings of
fact are clearly erroneous, the court’s decision is influenced
by an erroneous view of the law, or the military judge’s de-
cision on the issue at hand is outside the range of choices
reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law.”
Frost, 79 M.J. at 109 (internal quotation marks omitted)
(quoting United States v. Kelly, 72 M.J. 237, 242 (C.A.A.F.
2013)). Appellant does not claim that the motions judge’s
findings of fact were clearly erroneous. However, Appellant
argues that the motions judge did have an erroneous view
of the law and alleges three distinct legal errors. First, Ap-
pellant argues the motions judge’s view that the probative
value of the submitted evidence was low was based on an
erroneous interpretation of an Army court decision: United
States v. Andreozzi, 60 M.J. 727 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2004).
Second, Appellant argues the motions judge erred by fail-
ing to analyze the proffered evidence under the constitu-
tional exception to M.R.E. 412. Third, Appellant argues the
motions judge erred by failing to cite any specific M.R.E.
403 concerns in excluding this evidence. The Court is un-
persuaded by all three arguments.
    First, Appellant argues the motions judge misapplied
Andreozzi by failing to recognize that the case involved a
particularly bizarre set of facts and “case law from the ser-
vice courts of appeals shows that [M.R.E. 412] evidence
need not be similar to the charged conduct.” Brief for Ap-
pellant at 15-16, United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129
(C.A.A.F. June 6, 2022). But the motions judge in no way
characterized Andreozzi as requiring M.R.E. 412 evidence
to be similar. Rather, he relied on Andreozzi for its propo-
sition that “[r]elevance of prior sexual activity between an
accused and an alleged victim is increased by the degree of
its similarity to the charged conduct, and whether the sex-
ual activity is distinctive and unusual.” Andreozzi, 60 M.J.
at 739 (emphasis added). This approach was not erroneous.
Similar to the lower court’s decision in Andreozzi, this

                              8
          United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                    Opinion of the Court

Court also has considered the similarity between prior sex-
ual behavior and an alleged sexual assault when determin-
ing the probative value of proffered evidence, albeit in the
context of the admissibility of a victim’s prior sexual behav-
ior with individuals other than the defendant. See United
States v. Sanchez, 44 M.J. 174, 179-80 (C.A.A.F. 1996)
(“Likewise, where the sexual conduct is so particularly un-
usual and distinctive as to verify the defendant’s version,
there will be a constitutional requirement to admit the ev-
idence.”). Under this circumstance, this Court cannot con-
clude the motions judge erred when applying the principles
of Andreozzi. The two interactions at issue here between
Appellant and MC were quite dissimilar; “making out” is
simply not comparable to sexual intercourse. Stated differ-
ently, the fact that a person consented to kissing on one day
is not particularly probative of the issue of whether that
person consented to full sexual intercourse a day later.
    Second, we decline to adopt Appellant’s conclusion that
the motions judge failed to analyze Appellant’s proffered
evidence under the constitutional exception to M.R.E. 412.
Although we underscore that it would have been better if
the motions judge had more clearly applied the M.R.E. 412
framework when analyzing and deciding this matter, the
circumstances surrounding this litigated issue and the sub-
stance of the motions judge’s seven-page ruling is sufficient
for us to conclude that he in fact did consider M.R.E.
412(b)(3). To begin with, Appellant heavily relied on
M.R.E. 412(b)(3)—the constitutional exception—in his
original motion to submit evidence. It would be strange in-
deed if the motions judge did not consider the defense mo-
tion in this context. Next, the motions judge explicitly
acknowledged that Appellant had offered the evidence as
evidence of consent “under the ‘constitutionally required’
exception” and cited M.R.E. 412(b)(3). He also cited and
considered relevant case law from this Court which dis-
cusses the constitutional exception. Finally, the motions
judge contrasted the facts in Appellant’s case with this
Court’s analysis in United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314
(C.A.A.F. 2011), a case where we concluded certain

                              9
           United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                     Opinion of the Court

evidence was constitutionally required. Because of these
factors, we cannot conclude that the motions judge failed to
analyze Appellant’s proffered evidence under the constitu-
tional exception to M.R.E. 412.
    Finally, Appellant argues that the motions judge failed
to adequately cite any M.R.E. 403 concerns when excluding
the evidence. Indeed, we note that although the motions
judge asserted that “M.R.E. 403 concerns abound,” he ar-
ticulated only one of them in his ruling. (Emphasis added.)
Specifically, the motions judge stated “that a factfinder is
likely to react emotionally, rather than logically, to the im-
plication that [MC] enjoys abusive sexual behavior.” As
suggested by Appellant, the motions judge may have been
solely referring here to the Polaroid picture and MC’s al-
leged fondness for spanking. However, we note that the mo-
tions judge’s discussion of this M.R.E. 403 concern imme-
diately follows his discussion of the minimal probative
value of the “ ‘mak[e] out’ ” session in addition to the Polar-
oid picture and the spanking. Thus, it can be reasonably
inferred that the motions judge had M.R.E. 403 concerns
about all the evidence, and merely gave one concrete con-
cern about one piece of evidence to illustrate his point. Ac-
cordingly, we decline to adopt Appellant’s restrictive view
that the motions judge failed to adequately conduct a
M.R.E. 403 analysis. 3
    In sum, we conclude that the motions judge’s decision
to exclude evidence that Appellant and MC “made out” the
day before the alleged sexual assault was within the range
of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and
the law.

   3 Moreover, this Court may affirm a military judge’s ruling if
he or she arrived at the correct result, even if for the wrong rea-
son. United States v. Tyler, 81 M.J. 108, 112 (C.A.A.F. 2021).
Therefore, even if this Court were to conclude the motions judge
failed to properly conduct an M.R.E. 403 analysis, this Court
could nonetheless affirm his ruling.

                                10
          United States v. St. Jean, No. 22-0129/AR
                    Opinion of the Court

                  B. The Hickey Evidence
    As explained above in greater detail, during trial the
Government objected when the defense attempted to elicit
testimony about the hickeys, and the trial judge excused
the panel to conduct an Article 39(a), UCMJ, session. Ap-
pellant sought to explain that the witness would testify as
to having observed hickeys arising from the alleged sexual
assault, which would constitute res gestae evidence. The
trial judge asked the defense what evidence was before the
court that the hickeys were from the night of the offense.
Defense counsel ultimately stated that it “could move on
from this” and “could possibly readdress it later.” However,
defense counsel seemingly never returned to the matter,
and the trial judge never affirmatively excluded the evi-
dence. Under this circumstance, there was no ruling by the
trial judge to be appealed, and hence nothing for this Court
to review. See, e.g., United States v. Welch, 25 M.J. 23, 27
(C.M.A. 1987) (noting the military judge did not make a fi-
nal ruling excluding evidence).
                       IV. Judgment
   The judgment of the United States Army Court of Crim-
inal Appeals is affirmed.

                             11