CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

Recent ACCA Opinion: United States v. Rice

11/15/2020

0 Comments

 
On remand, ACCA set aside Colonel Robert J. Rice's findings and sentence.
​ 
​
Rice opinion here.

This case was remanded from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), which dismissed this court’s findings of guilty for two specifications of possession of child pornography. The CAAF remanded the case to consider whether Appellant’s federal district court conviction for possessing child pornography is or is not a lesser included offense of the military distribution specification.
​
Background

            Colonel Robert J. Rice (Appellant) was convicted in federal district court for knowingly possessing material containing images of child pornography between August 2010 and 29 January 2013, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5) and (2). Appellant was subsequently convicted of knowingly and wrongfully distributing six images of child pornography on divers occasions between 30 November 2010 and 6 December 2010, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ. 
 
Issues
            Whether Appellant’s federal district court conviction for possession of child pornography was a lesser-included offense of his military conviction for distribution of child pornography. 
 
Holding
            The Court concluded that the federal district court conviction for possessing child pornography was a lesser-included offense of the military distribution specification, and therefore set aside and dismissed the remaining distribution charge and specification.
 
Discussion
            The Fifth Amendment “forbids successive and cumulative punishment for a greater and lesser included offense.” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169 (1977). The Court reviewed de novo whether the prosecutions violated double jeopardy and whether one offense is a lesser-included offense of the other.
        The Court pointed out that the date range of Appellant’s military distribution charge fit entirely within the date range of the federal district court possession charge. The Court additionally considered that the parties agreed that: (1) all distributed images were possessed on Appellant’s HP Pavilion Laptop computer, and (2) the images entered into evidence at the federal district court were the same images used to form the entire factual basis of Appellant’s military distribution conviction. 
        Considering these facts, the Court found that “appellant was convicted at court-martial of distributing a subset of the very same images he was previously convicted of possessing in federal district court” and therefore, “the government could not have proven the military distribution offense without also proving every element of the district court possession offense.” Following CAAF precedent, the Court therefore concluded that Appellant’s federal district court possession conviction was a lesser-included offense of his military distribution conviction, and as the later conviction, the distribution charge must be dismissed. As a result, Appellant stands convicted of no military offenses.

Emily Eslinger

Senior Intern

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Links
    CAAF
    -Daily Journal
    -Current Term Opinions
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    Joint R. App. Pro.
    Global MJ Reform
    LOC Mil. Law
    Army Lawyer
    Resources

    Categories

    All
    Daily Journal
    MJ Reform
    Question Time
    Scholarship
    Top Of The Year 2021
    Unanimous
    Week In Review

    Archives

    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020

The views expressed on this website are expressed in the authors' personal capacities.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home