CAAFlog
  • Home

CAAFlog

Recent AFCCA Decision: United States v. Escobar

6/24/2020

 
Last week the AFCCA decided United States v. Escobar, a sexual assault case involving a factual sufficiency claim.
Appellant was convicted of sexual assaulting a 19-year-old Airman First Class (“A1C”) PM. On appeal, the AFCCA considered whether (1) the conviction was legally and factually sufficient and (2) the military judge abused his discretion by admitting a past sexual assault allegation into evidence. In a unanimous opinion, the AFCCA affirmed the conviction.[1]
 
 I. Appellant’s Conviction Was Legally and Factually Sufficient  

          The court-martial found that Appellant engaged in oral sex with A1C PM without his consent. Appellant argued that A1C PM was not too intoxicated to consent and, even if he were, Appellant made a mistake of fact. But AFCCA found Appellant’s conviction legally and factually sufficient because (1) A1C PM’s testimony clearly established a lack of consent[2] and (2) A1C PM’s Breathalyzer test proved that he could not consent.
 
 II. Admitting A Past Sexual Assault Allegation Against Appellant Was Not an Abuse of Discretion
  
          In 2011, BK, an enlisted airman, filed a restricted report of sexual assault against Appellant. BK agreed to testify against A1C PM at trial.[3] Appellant argued that the military judge erroneously admitted this testimony under M.R.E. 413 because (1) BK’s testimony was irrelevant to the consent issue and (2) in any event, the testimony was more prejudicial than probative. However, the AFCCA disagreed because (1) the evidence showed that Appellant had a propensity to commit sexual assault on non-consenting men in similar ways[4] and (2) the military judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the evidence was not prejudicial enough to be excluded.
 
Escobar Opinion Link

[1] Judge Ramírez authored the majority opinion, which was joined by Judges J. Johnson and Posch.
[2] A1C PM testified that was so intoxicated that he experienced gaps in his memory and that he left Appellant’s house at about 2300 hours in an effort to get away.
[3] On the night that BK was allegedly sexually assaulted, he called a Sexual Assault Response Coordinator who swabbed his penis for Appellant’s DNA. The Government’s expert showed that the DNA matched Appellant’s.
[4] The Court emphasized that the facts from A1C PM and BK’s sexual assault allegations were very similar.

James Taglienti

Senior Intern

Brenner M. Fissell
6/24/2020 12:49:18 pm

This case is interesting to compare to Lewis.

1. The existence of an objective indicator of inability to consent--BAC--appears to have been significant, as well as the past bad acts evidence.

2. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to figure out if there are patterns in the factual sufficiency sexual assault cases based on gender/sexual orientation of accuser and victim?


Comments are closed.
    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