United States v. Chikaka

76 M.J. 41, 2016 CAAF LEXIS 984

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
• Decided: December 12, 2016
• Docket: No. 16-0586/MC
• Status: Published

Opinion

CCA 201400251. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues:

I.WHERE THE MILITARY JUDGE ADMITTED ON THE MERITS A CAMPAIGN PLAN TO “FULLY OPERATIONALIZE THE COMMANDANT’S GUIDANCE” FROM THE HERITAGE TOUR, AND THEN DURING SENTENCING ADMITTED A PICTURE OF THE COMMANDANT AND ALLOWED APPELLANT’S COMMANDING OFFICER TO TESTIFY THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE MEMBERS TO ADJUDGE A HARSH SENTENCE, DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO FIND EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHIFT THE BURDEN TO THE GOVERNMENT TO DISPROVE UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE IN THIS CASE?

II.WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE INSTRUCTED THE MEMBERS, “IF, BASED ON YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, YOU MUST FIND HIM GUILTY,” WHERE SUCH AN INSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES v. MARTIN LINEN SUPPLY CO., 430 U.S. 564, 572-73 (1977), AND THERE IS INCONSISTENT APPLICATION BETWEEN THE SERVICES OF THE INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO WHEN MEMBERS MUST OR SHOULD CONVICT AN ACCUSED.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25 on Issue I only.

*

Judge Ryan has recused herself in this case and did not participate.