United States v. Neal , 68 M.J. 289 ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Raymond L. NEAL, Aviation Electronics Technician Airman
U.S Navy, Appellant
No. 09-5004
Crim. App. No. 200800746
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued September 21, 2009
Decided January 22, 2010
EFFRON, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BAKER
and STUCKY, JJ., joined. RYAN, J., filed a separate opinion
concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which ERDMANN, J.,
joined.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Dillon J. Ambrose, JAGC, USN
(argued).
For Appellee: Major Elizabeth A. Harvey, USMC (argued); Colonel
Louis J. Puleo, USMC, and Brian K. Keller, Esq. (on brief).
Amicus Curiae for the United States Air Force Appellate
Government Division: Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy S. Weber,
Captain Naomi N. Porterfield, and Gerald R. Bruce, Esq. (on
brief).
Military Judge: Mario H. De Oliveira
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
Chief Judge EFFRON delivered the opinion of the Court.
The present case concerns a decision by the military judge
to dismiss a charge in a pending court-martial. Upon appeal by
the Government under Article 62, Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 862 (2006), the United States Navy-
Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the military
judge and remanded the case to the Judge Advocate General of the
Navy for further proceedings before the court-martial. United
States v. Neal, 67 M.J. 675, 680-82 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2009).
The Judge Advocate General of the Navy certified the case for
our review under Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2)
(2006).
The charge under appeal, aggravated sexual contact in
violation of Article 120(e), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920(e), involves
a new offense enacted by Congress in 2006 as part of a
comprehensive revision of Article 120. See National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163,
div. A, tit. V, § 552(a)(1), 119 Stat. 3136, 3257 (2006)
(codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2006)). The 2006
legislation revised the description of rape under Article 120
and added thirteen other offenses to the statute, including
Article 120(e), aggravated sexual contact.
In pertinent part, the new statute makes it an offense to
engage in sexual contact by use of force. See infra Part III.A
2
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
(describing Article 120(e) and the related provisions of Article
120). In contrast to prior law, which required the government
to prove lack of consent as an element of the offense, see infra
Part III.A.1, the new statute expressly states that consent is
“not an issue” in a prosecution for specified offenses under
Article 120, including the offense of aggravated sexual contact.
See infra Part III.A.3.b (describing Article 120(r) and the
related provisions of Article 120).
At trial, the military judge interpreted Article 120(e) as
requiring the defense to disprove an implied element -- lack of
consent -- and dismissed the charge on the ground that the
statute unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof on an
element from the Government to the defense. On review under
Article 62, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the
statute did not contain an implied element and did not relieve
the Government of its burden to prove all elements beyond a
reasonable doubt. Neal, 67 M.J. at 680-82. The Judge Advocate
General of the Navy certified the following issues for our
review:
I. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING IT HAD
JURISDICTION OVER THIS ARTICLE 62, UCMJ, APPEAL,
WHERE THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN AFTER THE CASE WAS
ADJOURNED AND THE MEMBERS DISMISSED.
II. DESPITE THE LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 120(r),
UCMJ, WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE ARTICLE
3
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE ACCUSED FROM INTRODUCING
EVIDENCE OF CONSENT IN ORDER TO NEGATE AN ELEMENT
OF THE OFFENSE.
III. CONCERNING THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SET
FORTH IN ARTICLE 120(t)(16), WHETHER THE NAVY-
MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY
HELD THAT CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOCATED, TO
THE ACCUSED, THE BURDEN OF PROVING CONSENT BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
IV. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT “LACK OF
CONSENT” IS NOT AN IMPLICIT ELEMENT OF ARTICLE
120 CRIMES, INCLUDING THE CHARGED OFFENSE, GIVEN
THE DEFINITION OF “FORCE” IN ARTICLE 120(t)(5),
AND THUS ARTICLE 120, UCMJ, DOES NOT
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE
ACCUSED TO “DISPROVE AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE.”
V. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE
TRIGGERED THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF CONSENT AS
DEFINED IN ARTICLE 120(t)(16), UCMJ, DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
OBJECTIVE ACTS OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE.
VI. WHETHER THE FINAL TWO SENTENCES OF ARTICLE
120(t)(16), UCMJ, WHICH ALLOWS FOR CONSIDERATION
AS TO WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT HAS DISPROVED THE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF CONSENT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT, AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS PROVED
THE DEFENSE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,
CREATE A LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ALLOCATION.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of
the Court of Criminal Appeals. Part I summarizes the trial and
intermediate appellate proceedings. Part II addresses the first
certified issue, which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court of
Criminal Appeals. Part III addresses the balance of the
certified issues in light of the pertinent constitutional and
4
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
statutory considerations regarding Article 120. Part IV sets
forth our decision.
I. BACKGROUND
A. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
1. Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss the Charge
The charge in the present case alleges that Appellant --
engage[d] in sexual contact, to wit: by
using his hands to fondle the breasts and
vaginal area of Airman [_____] and by
thrusting his penis against the buttocks of
the said Airman [_____], by using physical
strength sufficient that she could not
escape the sexual contact.
Following arraignment, Appellant moved to dismiss the
charge, challenging the constitutionality of the new Article 120
on a number of grounds, including the contention that the
affirmative defense provisions of the statute unconstitutionally
shifted the burden of proof from the Government to Appellant.
See Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987). The military judge
stated that he would not address that question until he
determined whether the evidence raised the affirmative defense
of consent.
After the parties completed presentation of evidence on
the merits, the military judge summarized the evidence pertinent
to the issue of consent. He briefly noted that Airman [_____]
testified that Appellant had engaged in the charged conduct
without her permission. The military judge provided a more
5
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
detailed summary, as follows, regarding Appellant’s testimony
concerning his physical interaction with Airman [_____]:
1. Pg 852 (transcript). AN Neal indicated that
the alleged victim consented to a back and neck
rub due to a back injury she had previously
sustained.
2. Pg 854 After 20-30 minutes of rubbing the
alleged victim’s back, she reached up with her
right hand and interlocked her fingers with his
left hand and pulled herself up onto him. After
having her back against his chest, he asked if
she still wanted him to continue massaging her
back.
3. She did not respond to his question, shook
her head “no” and while biting her lip thrust her
hips towards his pelvic area. As she continued
to grind against him, he “got caught up in the
moment” and reciprocated by grinding up against
her.
4. Pg 856 (transcript) He moved his right hand
around the front of her stomach along her belt
line and then moved it down against the inside of
her thingh [sic] and started touching her around
her vaginal area on the outside of her jeans.
5. At one point he unbuckled her belt, as he
did this she pivoted her hips and raised them off
the bed towards his hand. Her pantns [sic] and
brazier [sic] were never unfastened.
6. Pg 857 (transcript) After unfastening her
belt, he stuck his hand down until he touched the
waistband of her underwear. As he started to
insert his hand down in the front of her jeans,
[another Airman in the room] woke up and began to
sit up. Then AR [_____] leaned towards him and
wispered [sic], “I think we should stop now.” He
immediately withdrew his hand and leaned up
against the headboard, she did the same and
turned on the T.V.
6
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
The military judge determined that the affirmative defense
of consent had been raised by Appellant’s description of the
physical contact and his description of the alleged victim’s
response. The military judge interpreted the statute as
requiring the prosecution to prove lack of consent by the
victim. In that light, the military judge viewed the
affirmative defense of consent under the statute as “element
based” and concluded that the statute unconstitutionally
required the defense to carry the burden of proof with respect
to an element of the offense. On that basis, he dismissed the
charge and its specification.
2. Proceedings Following Dismissal of the Charge
The members of the court-martial panel remained outside the
courtroom during the proceedings on the motion to dismiss the
charge. See Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 839(a) (2000).
Immediately following the military judge’s ruling, he directed
the bailiff to recall the panel, and the members entered the
courtroom at 10:23 a.m. After informing the members that he had
dismissed the charge and its specification, he said:
You have now completed your duties, and are
discharged with my sincerest thanks. Please
leave all the exhibits behind, if you have any in
your possession. You may take your own personal
notes with you, or leave those behind, and they
will be destroyed by the court reporter or
bailiff.
7
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
With respect to discussing the case, the military
judge said:
To assist you in determining what you may discuss
about this case, now that it is over, the
following guidance is provided. When you took
your oath as members, you swore not to disclose
or discover the vote or opinion of any particular
member of this court, unless required to do so in
the due course of law.
The military judge notified the members of the possibility that
he, or another military judge, might require them to state their
views in court:
This means you may not tell anyone any way --
well how you voted in this case wouldn’t be
appropriate, but what your opinion is, unless I,
or another judge, require you to do so in court.
He then discussed the opportunity to provide counsel with
feedback:
You are each entitled to this privacy. Other
than that, you are free to talk to anyone else in
this case, including myself, the attorneys, or
anyone else. And I’m sure counsel in this case
would very much appreciate any feedback that you
have on their advocacy and performance in court.
That’s one of the great ways that we can have our
counsel improve on their trial advocacy.
You, however, can decline to participate in such
discussions, if that is your choice.
The military judge concluded with the following:
Members, once again, I want to thank you
sincerely for your participation and patience in
this case. You’ve been a very attentive panel.
I appreciate your patience during all our 39(a)
sessions, and you may depart the courtroom and
resume your normal duties.
8
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
Thank you very much.
The members withdrew from the courtroom, and at 10:27 a.m. the
military judge stated: “This court-martial is adjourned.”
A day later, the trial counsel filed notice that the
Government had elected to appeal the ruling dismissing the
charge. See Article 62(a)(1)(A), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 862(a)(1)(A)
(2006) (authorizing the Government to appeal an “order or ruling
of the military judge which terminates the proceedings with
respect to a charge or specification”). Subsequently, the
Government filed its appeal of the military judge’s ruling at
the Court of Criminal Appeals.
3. Review by the Court of Criminal Appeals
The Court of Criminal Appeals conducted an en banc review
of the Government’s interlocutory appeal. See Article 66(a),
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(a) (2006). Following briefing and oral
argument, the court granted the Government’s interlocutory
appeal. Neal, 67 M.J. at 682. At the outset of its opinion,
the court considered, and rejected, Appellant’s contention that
the Government waived the right to appeal by not requesting a
delay before the military judge took action to dismiss the
charge and discharge the members. Id. at 677; see infra Part II
(discussing the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals in
the present case).
9
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
The lower court then addressed the merits of the military
judge’s ruling on the constitutionality of the statute,
concluding that the military judge erred by dismissing the
charge. The court concluded that “in this aggravated sexual
contact prosecution, proof of the element of force does not
require proof of ‘lack of consent,’ and the affirmative defense
of consent does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof
to the defense.” Neal, 67 M.J. at 682; see infra Part III
(discussing the merits of the decision by the military judge to
dismiss the charge of aggravated sexual contact).
II. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(Certified Issue I)
The first certified issue concerns the lower court’s
jurisdiction over the Government’s appeal. We review
jurisdictional questions de novo. See United States v.
Henderson, 59 M.J. 350, 351-52 (C.A.A.F. 2004). Appellant
asserts that the Government waived its right to appeal by not
requesting a delay in the proceedings under Rule for Courts-
Martial (R.C.M.) 908. Appellant also argues that the court-
martial ceased to exist because the military judge adjourned the
court and discharged the members. According to Appellant, the
military judge’s ruling is not subject to a Government appeal
10
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
under these circumstances because the case has become final,
thereby precluding interlocutory review.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that “[t]he military
judge’s statement to the members that they were ‘discharged’
following ‘termination of the proceedings’ does not deprive this
court of jurisdiction to determine this Government’s appeal.”
Neal, 67 M.J. at 677. The court also “decline[d] to address the
legal efficacy of potential future proceedings as not ripe for
review.” Id. We agree.
A. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 62
Article 62(a)(1)(A) governs interlocutory government
appeals “[i]n a trial by court-martial in which a military judge
presides and in which a punitive discharge may be adjudged . . .
.” The statute includes authority for the government to appeal
an “order or ruling of the military judge which terminates the
proceedings with respect to a charge or specification.” Id.
The statute contains a notice requirement accompanied by a
timing limitation: “An appeal of an order or ruling may not be
taken unless the trial counsel provides the military judge with
written notice of appeal from the order or ruling within 72
hours of the order or ruling.” Article 62(a)(2), UCMJ.
R.C.M. 908(b)(1) provides additional authority for the
prosecution to request a delay in trial proceedings during the
seventy-two hour period for filing an appeal:
11
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
After an order or ruling which may be subject to
an appeal by the United States, the court-martial
may not proceed, except as to matters unaffected
by the ruling or order, if the trial counsel
requests a delay to determine whether to file
notice of appeal under this rule. Trial counsel
is entitled to no more than 72 hours under this
subsection.
Appellant contends that R.C.M. 908(b)(1) reduces the
statutory seventy-two hour period provided under Article 62 for
the Government to file a notice of appeal. Under Appellant’s
theory, R.C.M. 908(b)(1) requires the Government to request a
delay as soon as the military judge issues a ruling in order to
preserve the seventy-two hour period for filing a notice of
appeal. According to Appellant, the prosecution waived the
statutory seventy-two hour period by not making a formal request
for delay during the few minutes that transpired between
issuance of the military judge’s ruling and the adjournment of
the court-martial.
Neither the statute nor the rule requires the prosecution
to take any such action. The statute provides the prosecution
with an unqualified seventy-two hour period in which to file a
notice of appeal. R.C.M. 908(b)(1) does not diminish that time
period or otherwise condition the availability of the full
seventy-two hour period upon filing a request for delay. The
rule, which addresses the flow of court-martial proceedings,
provides that certain aspects of the proceedings will be stayed
12
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
during the seventy-two hour period “if” trial counsel requests a
delay. In the absence of such a request, the proceedings will
continue. As such, the rule offers trial counsel an opportunity
to delay the proceedings during the seventy-two hour period if
the prosecution wishes to preserve the status quo with respect
to matters affected by the ruling or order. As noted in the
Drafters’ Analysis, the rule “provides the trial counsel with a
mechanism to ensure that further proceedings do not make an
issue moot before the Government can file notice of appeal.”
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Analysis of the Rules
for Courts-Martial app. 21 at A21-58 (2008 ed.) (MCM).
In the present case, the trial counsel filed a notice of
appeal within twenty-four hours of the military judge’s ruling.
The absence of a request for delay did not waive the
prosecution’s right to do so.
B. STATUS OF THE COURT-MARTIAL PANEL
In a related argument, Appellant contends that the
prosecution’s failure to request a delay made it possible for
the military judge to discharge the members. Appellant further
contends that once the military judge discharged the members,
the court-martial ceased to exist and the military judge’s
ruling on the charges became final. In Appellant’s view, the
proceedings were thereby terminated, thus precluding an
interlocutory appeal under Article 62.
13
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
We do not agree with Appellant’s view of the procedural
posture of this case. In the military justice system, the
authority of the military judge in a court-martial does not
cease upon the discharge of the members. The military judge
retains control over a court-martial until the record is
authenticated and forwarded to the convening authority for
review. See R.C.M. 1104. Until this point, even after
discharge of the members and adjournment of the court-martial,
the military judge may take actions such as: reconsidering
rulings, R.C.M. 905(f); reconvening the court-martial to correct
an erroneous sentence announcement, R.C.M. 1007(b); calling a
session to clarify an ambiguous sentence imposed by either the
military judge or the members, R.C.M. 1009(c); and directing
post-trial sessions, R.C.M. 1102. These authorities illustrate
that a court-martial does not cease to exist upon discharge of
the members, and a case remains in an interlocutory posture so
long as the military judge has the power to take action under
the UCMJ and Rules for Courts-Martial.
C. POTENTIAL DISQUALIFICATION OF THE MEMBERS
Appellant also contends that the court-martial has become
final because the action of the military judge in permitting the
panel members to discuss the case with counsel precludes further
proceedings. At this stage of the proceedings, a determination
as to the effect of the military judge’s actions upon the
14
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
proceedings would be premature. The defense has filed an
affidavit regarding events following discharge of the members,
but there has been no authoritative factfinding proceeding to
ascertain what actually transpired. The information regarding
discussions between counsel and members comes from an appellate
affidavit signed by trial defense counsel. The members
themselves have not submitted affidavits, nor have they been
questioned. On this record, it would be inappropriate at this
point of the proceedings to conclude that some or all of the
members have been disqualified. Even assuming that one or all
of the members should be disqualified, the military judge would
then have the opportunity to consider whether such members may
be replaced under R.C.M. 505(c). To the extent that excusal of
members might lead to motions raising mistrial or potential
former jeopardy concerns, those matters should be considered in
light of briefing by the parties before the military judge and
any factfinding that the military judge might find necessary.
Excusal of members is a standard procedure in a court-martial,
and the possibility of excusal and related concerns does not
transform the status of a court-martial from an interlocutory to
a final proceeding. At the present time, the military judge has
not had the opportunity to engage in factfinding, or to consider
any related issues concerning replacement, mistrial, or former
jeopardy. See R.C.M. 505, 905, 907(b)(2)(C).
15
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
To the extent that Appellant relies on cases from civilian
trials in which a declaration of a mistrial followed by
discharge of a jury has been held to terminate the proceedings,
see, e.g., Camden v. Circuit Court of the Second Judicial
Circuit, 892 F.2d 610, 616 n.7 (7th Cir. 1989), we note that
there has been no declaration of a mistrial in the present case.
We further note that this case remains in an interlocutory
posture and that discharge of the panel members does not
necessarily preclude reassembly. Accordingly, we conclude with
respect to the first certified issue that the Court of Criminal
Appeals had jurisdiction to review the Government’s appeal of
the military judge’s decision to dismiss the charge. The
remaining certified issues, which we discuss in the next
section, involve matters of constitutional and statutory
interpretation pertaining to the burden of proof under the new
Article 120.
III. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS
The defense brief provides the following concise
description of the issue before us: “Appellant alleges, and the
trial judge found, that the statutory scheme set forth in
Article 120, UCMJ, violates due process by necessarily placing a
burden on the defense to disprove an element of the Government’s
case.” In this section, we assess the military judge’s ruling
16
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
in light of the statutory text and applicable constitutional
considerations. The constitutionality of a statute is a
question of law we review de novo. United States v. Disney, 62
M.J. 46, 48 (C.A.A.F. 2005).
Part A summarizes the statutory context of the new Article
120, focusing on the offense at issue in the present appeal --
aggravated sexual contact under Article 120(e). Part B provides
background on the constitutional considerations applicable to
the relationship between the elements of an offense and
affirmative defenses. Parts C, D, and E discuss these
considerations in light of the constitutional and statutory
interpretation issues regarding the new Article 120 raised by
the present appeal.
A. STATUTORY CONTEXT
1. Sexual Misconduct Under Prior Law
Congress enacted the offense of aggravated sexual contact
in 2006 in the course of amending Article 120. See infra Part
III.A.2. Under prior law, the offense of rape required proof
that the accused committed “an act of sexual intercourse by
force and without consent.” See Article 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §
920 (2000) (amended in 2006). Many other forms of sexual
misconduct were charged under prior law as conduct prejudicial
to good order and discipline or as service discrediting conduct
under Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2000). For example,
17
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
the alleged misconduct in the present case might have been
charged under prior law as an indecent assault under Article
134. MCM pt. IV, paras. 63 (2005 ed.). With respect to the
assault element of that offense, the government would have been
required to prove that the accused acted “without the lawful
consent of the person affected.” Id. paras. 63.b(1), 63.c.,
54.c(1)(a).
2. Aggravated Sexual Contact Under the New Article 120
Article 120(e) states:
Any person subject to this chapter who engages in
or causes sexual contact with or by another
person, if to do so would violate subsection (a)
(rape) had the sexual contact been a sexual act,
is guilty of aggravated sexual contact, and may
be punished as a court-martial may direct.
By its terms, the offense of aggravated sexual contact
incorporates statutory provisions governing the offense of rape
under Article 120(a). The definitions in Article 120(t) govern
the terms of Article 120(a) and the incorporated provisions of
Article 120(e). Under the statute, the elements of rape, along
with the definitions of force and sexual contact, transform non-
criminal sexual contact into a criminal offense -- aggravated
sexual contact by force. Taken as a whole, these provisions
require the government to prove the following in a prosecution
for aggravated sexual contact by force:
18
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
(1) The accused engaged in “sexual contact” with another
person by touching “the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks of the other person.” Articles 120(e),
120(t)(2), UCMJ.
(2) The accused engaged in such contact “with an intent to
abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify
the sexual desire of any person.” Article 120(t)(2), UCMJ.
(3) The accused “caus[ed] another person of any age to
engage in” such contact by “using force against that other
person.” Articles 120(a)(1), 120(a)(2), UCMJ.
(4) The use of force consisted of “action to compel
submission of another” or “to overcome or prevent another’s
resistance,” and the use of force involved application of
“physical . . . strength . . . sufficient that the other person
could not avoid or escape the sexual conduct.” Article
120(t)(5), UCMJ.
3. Consent Under the New Article 120
The amendment to Article 120 deleted the phrase “without
consent” from the statute. The new Article 120 addresses the
subject of consent in several respects.
a. The definition of consent
The definition of consent in Article 120(t)(14) contains
three components. The first explains the meaning of “consent”
under Article 120:
19
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
The term “consent” means words or overt acts
indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual
conduct at issue by a competent person.
The second component of the definition identifies several
circumstances excluded from the definition of consent:
An expression of lack of consent through words or
conduct means there is no consent. Lack of
verbal or physical resistance or submission
resulting from the accused’s use of force, threat
of force, or placing another person in fear does
not constitute consent. A current or previous
dating relationship by itself or the manner of
dress of the person involved with the accused in
the sexual conduct at issue shall not constitute
consent.
The third component of the definition, which is not at issue in
the present appeal, identifies circumstances in which an
individual cannot give consent under Article 120, including
persons under sixteen years of age and persons “substantially
incapable” of “appraising the nature of the sexual conduct at
issue” because of specified mental or physical circumstances.
The term “mistake of fact as to consent” also is a defined
term. See Article 120(t)(15), UCMJ. Mistake of fact is not at
issue in the present appeal.
b. Consent as an affirmative defense
Article 120(r), entitled “Consent and Mistake of Fact as to
Consent,” sets forth three principles regarding consent. First,
the provision states: “Lack of permission is an element of the
offense in subsection (m) (wrongful sexual contact)” -- an
20
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
offense that is not at issue in the present appeal. Second,
Article 120(r) sets forth the general proposition that
“[c]onsent and mistake of fact as to consent are not an issue,
or an affirmative defense, in a prosecution under any other
subsection . . . .” Third, the provision contains an exception
pertinent to the present case, noting that consent and mistake
of fact as to consent “are an affirmative defense for the sexual
conduct in issue in a prosecution under subsection (a) (rape),
subsection (c) (aggravated sexual assault), subsection (e)
(aggravated sexual contact), and subsection (h) (abusive sexual
contact).”
c. The definition of “affirmative defense”
The definition of “affirmative defense” in Article
120(t)(16) contains both descriptive and procedural components.
The descriptive portion states that an “affirmative defense” is
“any special defense which, although not denying that the
accused committed the objective acts constituting the offense
charged, denies, wholly, or partially, criminal responsibility
for those acts.”
The procedural component contains two parts. The first
states: “The accused has the burden of proving the affirmative
defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” The second states:
“After the defense meets this burden, the prosecution shall have
21
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
affirmative defense did not exist.”
B. THE ALLOCATION OF BURDENS OF PROOF WHEN EVIDENCE IMPLICATES
AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE AND AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Due Process Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const.
amend. V, protects a defendant from conviction “except upon
proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
constitute the crime with which he is charged.” In re Winship,
397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970); see R.C.M. 920(e)(5). The
Constitution precludes shifting the burden of proof from the
government to the defense “with respect to a fact which the
State deems so important that it must be either proved or
presumed” in order to constitute a crime. Patterson v. New
York, 432 U.S. 197, 215 (1977).
A legislature may redefine the elements of an offense and
require the defense to bear the burden of proving an affirmative
defense, subject to due process restrictions on impermissible
presumptions of guilt. Id. at 205-06, 210, 215. A statute may
place the burden on the accused to establish an affirmative
defense even when the evidence pertinent to an affirmative
defense also may raise a reasonable doubt about an element of
the offense. See Martin, 480 U.S. at 234.
In Martin, the Supreme Court observed that its review of
the statute took into account “the preeminent role of the States
22
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
in preventing and dealing with crime.” Id. at 232. Martin also
noted “the reluctance of the Court to disturb a State’s decision
with respect to the definition of criminal conduct and the
procedures by which the criminal laws are to be enforced in the
courts, including the burden of producing evidence and
allocating the burden of persuasion.” Id. An overlap between
the evidence pertinent to the affirmative defense and evidence
negating the prosecution’s case does not violate the Due Process
Clause when instructions “convey to the jury that all of the
evidence, including the evidence going to [the affirmative
defense], must be considered in deciding whether there was a
reasonable doubt about the sufficiency of the State’s proof of
the elements of the crime.” Id. at 232-36.
Appellate courts have addressed the overlap identified in
Martin with respect to statutes under which evidence at trial
potentially pertains to both (1) a fact on which the defense
bears the burden of persuasion, and (2) a matter that is
subsidiary to a fact on which the prosecution bears the burden
of persuasion. In such a case, the instructions to the jury
must reflect “sensitivity to th[e] dependent relationship
between the two [distinct] factual issues.” Humanik v. Beyer,
871 F.2d 432, 441 (3d Cir. 1989).
In Humanik, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit considered instructions under state law regarding
23
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
evidence of a mental disease or defect. Id. at 433. Under the
instructions, the evidence could be considered by the jury: (1)
to determine whether the defense proved the existence of mental
disease or defect by a preponderance of the evidence for
purposes of establishing a defense; and (2) as subsidiary
evidence with respect to the element of intent, an issue on
which the prosecution bore the burden of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. at 435. The court found a due process
violation in the sequential structure of the instructions. Id.
at 442. The court noted the likelihood that the jury would
first determine the issue of whether the defendant established
the fact of mental disease or defect by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. If the jury determined that the defendant failed
to establish this fact by a preponderance of the evidence, the
court concluded that the evidence would play no role in the
jury’s deliberations with respect to the issue of intent, a
matter on which the state had the burden of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. As such, the court viewed the
instructions as an unconstitutional filter upon consideration of
evidence pertinent to an element of the offense. Id. at 443;
accord Kontakis v. Beyer, 19 F.3d 110, 115 (3d Cir. 1994)
(finding a due process violation in instructions that “failed to
allow for the possibility that [the defendant’s] mental disease
and defect evidence, although not rising to the level of being
24
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
more probable than not, created a reasonable doubt as to whether
he had the requisite intent to commit the offense”).
In Russell v. United States, 698 A.2d 1007 (D.C. 1997), the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals considered a sexual
misconduct statute with an affirmative defense component. Id.
at 1008. In language similar to the statute under consideration
in the present appeal, the legislation under review in Russell
made it an offense for a person to engage in or cause another
person to engage in a sexual act through various means,
including the use of force. See id. at 1009. The legislation
also created an affirmative defense of consent, with the defense
bearing the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. The court identified a critical change in the
focus of attention in sexual misconduct cases under the statute:
The new sexual abuse statute . . . was intended
to change the focus of the criminal process away
from an inquiry into the state of mind or acts of
the victim to an inquiry into the conduct of the
accused. To this end, the new provisions do not
include “lack of consent” as an element of the
offense.
Id.The defendant in Russell objected at trial to the statutory
provision under which he bore the burden of proof on the
affirmative defense, and he also objected to the instructions
given by the trial judge regarding consent and the burden of
proof. Id. at 1010. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court
25
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
of Appeals held that the instruction was defective because the
jury was not “expressly instructed that it may consider the
affirmative defense evidence when it determines whether the
government has met its burden to prove all the elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1015-16 (citing
Humanik, 871 F.2d 432).
Although the Court of Appeals found a constitutional
deficiency in the instruction, the court rejected a defense
challenge to the constitutionality of the statute and remanded
the case for retrial. Id. at 1016-17. The court concluded that
the statutory affirmative defense, which placed upon the defense
the burden of proving consent by a preponderance of the
evidence, did not offend the due process clause under Martin.
Id. After noting that “the legislature did not exclude consent
evidence as relevant to the government’s burden of proof on the
elements of the offense,” id. at 1016, the court concluded that
the statute did not “preclude the jury from considering the
defendant’s consent evidence as relevant to the government’s
burden to prove the elements of the offense.” Id. at 1017. The
court also noted with approval “the fact that the affirmative
defense of consent focuses on something within the knowledge of
the accused that he may fairly be required to prove -- that the
words or overt actions of the complainant reasonably indicated
that the complainant freely agreed to engage in the sexual act.”
26
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
Id.; see also Hicks v. United States, 707 A.2d 1301, 1303-05
(D.C. 1998) (remanding a case for further proceedings in light
of an instructional error regarding the burden of proof); Mozee
v. United States, 963 A.2d 151, 161 (D.C. 2009) (affirming a
conviction under the statute on the grounds that an
instructional defect in the case with regard to the burden of
proof did not affect the appellant’s substantial rights under a
plain error analysis).
Under Russell, the opportunity for a jury to consider
evidence that may raise a reasonable doubt about an element does
not shift the burden to the defense to disprove that element.
The burden of proof as to all elements remains on the
prosecution. A properly instructed jury may consider evidence
of consent at two different levels: (1) as raising a reasonable
doubt as to whether the prosecution has met its burden on the
element of force; and (2) as to whether the defense has
established an affirmative defense. As such, the statute does
not offend the Due Process Clause under Martin.
C. CONSENT UNDER ARTICLE 120
1. The relationship between consent and the facts necessary to
constitute a crime under Article 120(e)
The 2006 amendment to Article 120 removed lack of consent
as an element of rape and its related offenses. See supra Part
27
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
III.A. The text of Article 120(e) and the incorporated
provisions of Articles 120(a) and 120(t) do not set forth lack
of consent as an element of the offense. See id. The Supreme
Court has “observed that ‘[t]he definition of the elements of
criminal offense is entrusted to the legislature, particularly
in the case of federal crimes, which are solely creatures of
statute.’” Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1, 7 (2006)
(alteration in original) (quoting Liparota v. United States, 471
U.S. 419, 424 (1985)). Congress has broad authority to define
the elements of offenses under the constitutional power to make
rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces.
U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl.14; see Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S.
733, 750 (1974); see also Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163,
177 (1994).
When sexual abuse by members of the armed forces occurs
within a military organization, it can have a devastating impact
on the good order and discipline essential to the conduct of
military operations. When sexual abuse by deployed military
personnel involves civilians, it can undermine relationships
with the local population critical to our Nation’s military and
foreign policy objectives. These factors illustrate the
importance of recognizing the broad authority of Congress to
regulate the conduct of military personnel. That authority
includes the power to define rape and its related offenses in a
28
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
manner that does not require proof on the subject of consent,
notwithstanding the traditional requirement in military and
civilian law for such proof.
Aside from any unique considerations applicable to
legislation governing the rights and responsibilities of
military personnel, we note that the statute before us reflects
similar legislation in the civilian sector. As discussed in
Part III.B, supra, the District of Columbia has enacted a
similar statute. With respect to that legislation, the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals observed that the statute “was
intended . . . to change the focus of the criminal process away
from an inquiry into the state of mind or acts of the victim to
an inquiry into the conduct of the accused.” Russell, 698 A.2d
at 1009.
Under Article 120(e), as under the District of Columbia
statute, the prosecution need not prove the absence of consent
in order to obtain a conviction. If the court-martial panel,
like a civilian jury, is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by
competent evidence -- such as the testimony of an eyewitness --
that the accused engaged in sexual contact by applying the
degree of force described in Article 120(e), then the panel may
return a finding of guilty as to aggravated sexual contact. In
short, under the structure of the amended statute, the absence
of consent is not a fact necessary to prove the crime of
29
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
aggravated sexual contact under Article 120(e). See Neal, 67
M.J. at 678.
2. Consent as a potential subsidiary fact under Article 120(e)
As the District of Columbia Court of Appeals observed in
Russell, 698 A.2d at 1013, evidence that the alleged victim
consented to the charged sexual contact is relevant to the
jury’s determination of whether the prosecution has proved the
element of force beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further
held that failure to provide appropriate instructions on the
relevance of consent violates the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution. Id. at 1016.
In Article 120(r), Congress stated that consent is not “an
issue . . . in a prosecution under” designated provisions of
Article 120, including Article 120(e). The phrase “an issue” in
Article 120(r) is susceptible to a number of interpretations,
including a broad and narrow view. Read broadly, the phrase “an
issue” could be interpreted as providing that consent is never
“at issue” or “in issue” in a prosecution under Article 120
except when the defense meets its burden of persuasion to
establish an affirmative defense. Such a reading would raise a
substantial conflict with the Supreme Court’s application of the
Due Process Clause in Martin because it would preclude
consideration of consent evidence as a potential subsidiary fact
with respect to an element of the offense. See supra Part
30
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
III.B. Read narrowly, however, the provision could be
interpreted as providing that consent is not “an issue” -- a
discrete matter -- that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
as an element of the offense. In that regard, we note that the
statute refers to when consent is “an issue” and does not state
that consent is never “in issue” or “at issue” except as an
affirmative defense. As such, the statement in the legislation
that consent is not “an issue” may be interpreted narrowly as
emphasizing that consent is not an element, thereby underscoring
and reinforcing the legislation’s deletion of the prior
requirement that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the accused acted “without consent” from the alleged
victim. Under the narrow interpretation, the provision would
not preclude treating evidence of consent as a subsidiary fact
potentially relevant to a broader issue in the case, such as the
element of force. That interpretation, which would not conflict
with Martin, also would be consistent with Russell, under which
evidence of a subsidiary fact may be considered as bearing upon
the prosecution’s burden to prove the element of force.
We decline to adopt a broad interpretation that would raise
a direct conflict with Martin, a Supreme Court decision
applicable to criminal proceedings, when a narrow interpretation
can avoid such a conflict. See 2A Norman J. Singer & J. D.
Shambie Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction §
31
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
45:11 (7th ed. 2008). We interpret Article 120(r) narrowly as
underscoring and reinforcing the effect of the 2006 legislation
in terms of deleting the prior requirement for the prosecution
to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. We
do not interpret Article 120(r) as a prohibition against
considering evidence of consent, if introduced, as a subsidiary
fact pertinent to the prosecution’s burden to prove the element
of force beyond a reasonable doubt.
D. CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFIED ISSUES II-VI
The issues certified by the Judge Advocate General refer to
the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals, but in substance
the certified issues address the ruling of the military judge on
the constitutionality of Article 120. In that light, we focus
on the ruling issued by the military judge. See United States
v. Shelton, 64 M.J. 32, 37 (C.A.A.F. 2006).
1. The limited scope of interlocutory review
In considering the certified issues, we note the
limitations on the scope of our review imposed by the
interlocutory posture of the present appeal under Article 62,
UCMJ. At the present stage of the proceedings, the parties have
not made closing arguments on the merits of the charged offense;
the military judge has not issued final instructions; the
parties have not waived any instructions; and the members have
not returned findings on the charged offense. In that setting,
32
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
our review is limited to those matters necessary to assess the
military judge’s decision to dismiss the charge. Other portions
of the military judge’s ruling, such as the military judge’s
rationale for rejecting various aspects of the defense motion to
dismiss, may provide useful context but are not before us for
decision during interlocutory review.
2. The constitutionality of the affirmative defense (Certified
Issue IV)
Appellant contends that the military judge correctly
dismissed the charge because lack of consent is an “implicit
element” in the offense of aggravated sexual contact. Appellant
bases this theory on the definition of force in Article
120(t)(5), which, in the context of the charge in the present
case, requires proof that the accused used “action to compel
submission of another or to overcome or prevent another’s
resistance” by “strength . . . applied to another person.”
According to Appellant:
If someone is compelled to submit, by definition
they are not willing participants in the action,
and therefore a “lack of consent” is implicit.
Likewise, the same can be said for someone whose
resistance is overcome or prevented. Both of
these concepts assume resistance, which is an
active attempt to prevent something from
happening. One does not submit if willing, one
need not be overcome if willing, and one does not
resist that which one wants. Proving the
compelled submission, or the overcome or
prevented resistance, the Government is thus
burdened with showing these acts were not “freely
33
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
given agreement[s],” Article 120(t)(14), i.e., it
was done with a “lack of consent.”
Appellant’s contention suggests that Congress engaged in a
futile act in passing legislation that deleted the phrase
“without consent” from Article 120 and listed the offenses in
which consent is not “an issue.” In Appellant’s view, these
actions had no effect because the statutory definition of force
reinserted “without consent” as an “implicit element” in the
statute. From Appellant’s perspective, the primary focus of the
statute is not on the force applied by the accused but on the
mental state of the alleged victim, requiring the prosecution to
prove that the alleged victim was “someone” who was “not
willing.”
We disagree. Like the statute considered by the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals in Russell, Article 120 focuses on
the force applied by an accused, not on the mental state of the
alleged victim. See supra Parts III.B-III.C. The statute
describes the prohibited act in terms of the degree of force
applied to the alleged victim by the accused. Although the
statute describes the degree of force in terms of the relative
actions of the accused and the alleged victim, the prosecution
is not required to prove whether the alleged victim was, in
fact, willing or “not willing.” If the evidence demonstrates
that the degree of force applied by an accused constitutes
34
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
“action to compel” another person, the statute does not require
further proof that the alleged victim, in fact, did not consent.
See supra Part III.A.2. Congress, in defining force from the
perspective of the action taken by the alleged perpetrator, did
not reinsert “without consent” as an “implicit element” in
Article 120. The possibility that evidence pertinent to the
affirmative defense of consent could raise a reasonable doubt
about the element of force in a particular case does not render
the statute unconstitutional. See Martin, 480 U.S. at 234.
With respect to Issue IV, as certified by the Judge Advocate
General of the Navy, we conclude that the military judge erred
in treating lack of consent as an element of the offense and in
concluding that Congress established an unconstitutional
element-based affirmative defense in Article 120.
3. Consideration of consent evidence under Article 120(e)
(Certified Issues II and III)
Issues II and III raise questions about treatment of
consent evidence under Article 120, both with respect to the
prosecution’s burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable
doubt and the defense burden of proving an affirmative defense
by a preponderance of the evidence. The military judge
considered both aspects of consent evidence in addressing the
motion to dismiss the charge.
35
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
As discussed in Part III.C, supra, the statute does not
preclude consideration of consent evidence by a court-martial
panel when determining whether the prosecution has proven the
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and it
permits consideration of such evidence with respect to the
affirmative defense of consent. If such evidence is introduced,
the military judge must instruct the members to consider all of
the evidence, including the evidence of consent, when
determining whether the government has proven guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. See Martin, 480 U.S. at 232-36. In doing so,
the military judge must be mindful of both the content and
sequential structure of the instructions. See Russell, 698 A.2d
1015-16; Humanik, 871 F.2d at 441-43.
We note that the present appeal does not involve a
challenge to a ruling of the military judge regarding the
admissibility of consent evidence, nor does it involve a
challenge to the argument of counsel with respect to such
evidence. In light of the interlocutory posture of this case,
no panel instructions regarding consent evidence have been given
or waived. Until the military judge has addressed both the
content and sequence of instructions, a determination as to
whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied to Appellant
would be premature.
36
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
4. Evidence concerning the affirmative defense of consent
(Certified Issue V)
Certified Issue V asks whether the lower court erred in
treating the evidence of record as sufficient to invoke the
affirmative defense under Article 120. The military judge
treated the evidence of record as sufficient to invoke the
affirmative defense for purposes of ruling on the motion to
dismiss the charge. We view treatment of the evidence by the
Court of Criminal Appeals in the same light. None of the
decisions in the present case, including our own, constitute a
final decision regarding the evidence in this case, including
any evidence subject to consideration as evidence of consent.
At this stage in the proceedings, as noted earlier, no
instructions have been waived or given with respect to any
matter asserted to be evidence of consent. As the content and
sequence of the military judge’s instructions are necessary to
determine the proper consideration of any consent evidence, see
Humanik, 871 F.2d at 441-43, it would be premature at this point
to address the manner in which the military judge should treat
any evidence of consent in the present case.
5. The burdens of proof regarding affirmative defenses under
Article 120(t)(16) (Certified Issue VI)
Certified Issue VI concerns the procedural aspects of
Article 120(t)(16) in terms of the relationship between the
burdens of the prosecution and defense with respect to an
37
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
affirmative defense. In the course of denying that portion of
the defense motion concerning the relative burdens of the
parties, the military judge identified interpretative
considerations and concluded that those matters could be
addressed through appropriate instructions without dismissing
the charge. He did not rely upon that ruling as a basis for his
separate decision to dismiss the charge. The scope of our
review in the present case under Article 62 is limited to the
military judge’s ruling dismissing the charge. We note that our
decision in the present case does not preclude the parties from
requesting that the military judge give fresh consideration to
the question of whether the relative procedural burdens under
Article 120(t)(16) raise interpretative issues that should be
addressed through instructions or other appropriate remedies.
E. CONCLUSION
In summary, the Constitution permits a legislature to place
the burden on the defendant to establish an affirmative defense,
even if the evidence necessary to prove the defense also may
raise a reasonable doubt about an element of the offense. See
Martin, 480 U.S. at 234; supra Part III.B. If such evidence is
presented, the judge must ensure that the factfinder is
instructed to consider all of the evidence, including the
evidence raised by the defendant that is pertinent to the
affirmative defense, when determining whether the prosecution
38
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Martin, 480
U.S. at 232-36; Humanik, 871 F.2d at 441-43; Russell, 698 A.2d
at 1015-16; supra Part III.B.
Congress has broad authority to regulate the conduct of
members of the armed forces, including the power to define the
elements of offenses committed by servicemembers. Supra Part
III.C.1. Under the statute before us, the element of force
establishes the crime of aggravated sexual contact without
including “lack of consent” as an additional element. Supra
Parts III.C.1, D.2. Under the statutory framework set up by
Congress, the prosecution may obtain a conviction upon a showing
that the accused applied a certain amount of force and need not
provide any evidence regarding the victim’s state of mind.
Supra Parts III.C.1., D.2. If evidence of consent is
introduced, it may raise a reasonable doubt about the
government’s proof on the element of force. As such, the
evidence of consent would be relevant to the determination of
whether the government has proven the required elements beyond a
reasonable doubt. Supra Part III.C.2.
The amended statute does not prohibit the consideration of
consent evidence for that purpose. Supra Part III.C.2. The
opportunity to consider evidence that may raise a reasonable
doubt about an element does not shift the burden to the defense
to disprove that element. Supra Part III.B. To the extent that
39
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
evidence of consent may raise a reasonable doubt as to the
element of force, the military judge has the authority to craft
an appropriate instruction ensuring that the burden of proof
remains with the government. Supra Part III.B. Consideration
by a properly instructed panel of two different matters -–
whether evidence of consent raises a reasonable doubt about the
element of force, as well as whether evidence of consent
establishes an affirmative defense –- does not render the
statute unconstitutional. Id.
The present case is in an interlocutory posture.
Consideration of the constitutional issues, as applied to
Appellant, may be affected by factors such as the content of
instructions, sequence of instructions, and waiver of
instructions. Those matters have not been resolved at the trial
level. At this point, it would be premature to conclude that
the statute, as applied to Appellant, is unconstitutional.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court
of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. We remand the record of trial
to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for return to the
military judge for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
40
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
RYAN, J., with whom ERDMANN, J., joins (concurring in part
and dissenting in part):
I agree with the majority that the procedural posture of
this case does not bar us from exercising jurisdiction under
Article 67(a)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10
U.S.C. § 867(a)(2) (2006). However, I have a fundamental
disagreement with how the majority chooses to interpret the
language of Article 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2006), itself.
The new Article 120, UCMJ, is neither a model of clarity
nor a model statute. But while I agree that a potentially
unconstitutional statute may be construed in such a way that
renders it constitutional (if such construction is plausible),
United States v. Neal, __ M.J. __ (31-32) (C.A.A.F. 2010), this
judicial band-aid does not change my point of disagreement with
the majority because I do not believe their construction is
plausible.
It is axiomatic that the government must prove all the
elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship,
397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). In my view, given the statute’s
definition of the relevant terms, making consent an affirmative
defense under Article 120(r), UCMJ, relieves the government of
this burden and unconstitutionally requires the defendant to
disprove force -- at least where an accused is charged with
aggravated sexual contact using force (or any other offense
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
under Article 120, UCMJ, alleging the use of force). This
Congress may not do.
“Force” and “consent,” as defined by Article 120, UCMJ, are
two sides of the same coin. Compare Article 120(t)(5), UCMJ
(defining “force” as “action to compel submission of another or
to overcome or prevent another’s resistance”), with Article
120(t)(14), UCMJ (defining “consent” as “words or overt acts
indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual conduct”). As
a matter of logic I would not have thought that anyone would
agree that a person can be “forced” to do something the person
has consented to or that “consent” can be compelled. The
concepts are diametric opposites and, in my view, cannot coexist
with respect to the same action -- which is the problem with
holding that the burden to prove consent in this case is on
Appellant.
While it is constitutionally permissible to allocate to a
defendant the burden of proving an affirmative defense, this is
true only so long as the allocation does not relieve the
government of its burden. Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 234
(1987); Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 215 (1977). Merely
labeling something an affirmative defense does not automatically
give it the qualities necessary to pass constitutional muster.
United States v. Clemons, 843 F.2d 741, 752 (3d Cir. 1988); 1
2
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 1.8(c), at 86 (2d
ed. 2003).
Under Article 120, UCMJ, “aggravated sexual contact”
involves engaging in a sexual act by, among other things (and as
charged against Appellant), “using force against [another]
person.”
The term ‘force’ means action to compel submission of
another or to overcome or prevent another’s resistance
by --
(A) the use or display of a dangerous weapon or
object;
(B) the suggestion of possession of a dangerous
weapon or object that is used in a manner to
cause another to believe it is a dangerous weapon
or object; or
(C) physical violence, strength, power, or
restraint applied to another person, sufficient
that the other person could not avoid or escape
the sexual conduct.
Article 120(t)(5), UCMJ. If charged with this crime, an accused
is permitted to raise consent as an affirmative defense.
Article 120(r), UCMJ. “The term ‘consent’ means words or overt
acts indicating a freely given agreement to the sexual conduct
at issue by a competent person.” Article 120(t)(14), UCMJ. The
majority lists the elements of aggravated sexual contact set
forth in the statute, notes that the word “consent” does not
appear as an element, and is satisfied. __ M.J. at __ (18-20,
28, 30, 39). But the majority fails to reconcile the statutory
text as a whole; “force” is more than just a particular type and
quantum of physical exertion. But see id. at __ (29, 40).
3
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
Rather, Congress has defined the term such that it requires a
compelling of submission, or an overcoming or preventing of
resistance by any of the means listed in Article 120(t)(5)(A)-
(C), UCMJ.
Neither compelled submission nor resistance are defined in
the statute and therefore must be given their ordinary meanings.
To “compel” is “to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly” or
“to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.” Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 253 (11th ed. 2008). To
“submit” is “to yield oneself to the authority or will of
another”; “surrender” is a synonym. Id. at 1244. To “resist”
is “to exert force in opposition” or “to exert oneself so as to
counteract or defeat.” Id. at 1060. Taken together, these
definitions imply an authority, will, or force that is imposed
on another and that is in opposition to the true will of the one
imposed upon. Given the statute’s focus on submission and
resistance, then, evidence of consent presented by the defendant
-- i.e., evidence of “words or overt acts indicating a freely
given agreement to the sexual conduct at issue by a competent
person,” Article 120(t)(14), UCMJ -- necessarily and directly
disproves a required element of the crime.
Article 120(t)(16), UCMJ, defines an “affirmative defense”
as “any special defense which, although not denying that the
accused committed the objective acts constituting the offense
4
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
charged, denies, wholly, or partially, criminal responsibility
for those acts.” Accord Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.)
916(a); R.C.M. 916(a) Discussion; United States v. Petty, 132
F.3d 373, 378 (7th Cir. 1997). But the defense here is not an
ordinary affirmative defense. See Martin, 480 U.S. at 235(upholding affirmative defense of “self-defense” in murder
prosecution because state courts interpreted elements of murder
in way that made it possible for all elements of the crime to
coexist with self-defense); Patterson, 432 U.S. at 206-07(upholding affirmative defense of “extreme emotional
disturbance” in murder prosecution because defense “[did] not
serve to negative any facts of the crime which the State is to
prove in order to convict”); Farrell v. Czarnetzky, 566 F.2d
381, 382 (2d Cir. 1977) (upholding unloaded-weapon defense in
robbery prosecution because “possession of a weapon actually
capable of causing death [was] not a necessary ingredient of the
offense”). Rather than allowing a defendant to commit the
objective elements of the offense but nonetheless escape
liability, consent entirely negates an element of aggravated
sexual contact using force; there could be no force, as defined
in the statute, where the victim assented to the conduct.1
“[T]he sole significance of the defendants’ evidence concerning
1
This does not encompass situations where the victim may give
some indication of assent but cannot legally “consent” under the
provisions of Article 120(t)(14), UCMJ.
5
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
the so-called ‘affirmative defense’ [of consent] is to create a
reasonable doubt about the existence of an element of the
offense,” Humanik v. Beyer, 871 F.2d 432, 440 (3d Cir. 1989) --
namely, force.
A defendant may not be required to bear the burden of proof
on a defense that “‘negative[s] guilt by cancelling out the
existence of some required element of the crime.’” Clemons, 843
F.2d at 752 (quoting 1 Wayne LaFave & Austin Scott, Substantive
Criminal Law § 1.8(c), at 71, 75 (1986)). “Such shifting of the
burden of persuasion with respect to a fact which the State
deems so important that it must be either proved or presumed is
impermissible under the Due Process Clause.” Patterson, 432
U.S. at 215.
Burden allocation is of fundamental importance: “[W]here
one party has at stake an interest of transcending value -- as a
criminal defendant his liberty -- th[e] margin of error is
reduced as to him by the process of placing on the [government]
the burden . . . of persuading the factfinder . . . of his guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513,
525-26 (1958). But “where the defendant is required to prove
[or disprove a] critical fact in dispute” in a criminal
proceeding, “the likelihood of an erroneous . . . conviction,”
increases. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 701 (1975). This
is why the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the reasonable-doubt
6
United States v. Neal, No. 09-5004/NA
standard time and again and why courts must remain vigilant in
upholding the standard against legislative schemes that require
defendants to persuade the factfinder as to the elements of a
crime. See Martin, 480 U.S. at 233-34; Patterson, 432 U.S. at
207, 210; Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 701.
Article 120, UCMJ, unconstitutionally burdens the defendant
with disproving an element of the government’s case. I
respectfully dissent.
7