In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) examined the legal sufficiency of a general court-martial specification under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which failed to assert that the appellant’s actions were “wrongful” or “unlawful.” Boatswain’s Mate Third Class Andrew J. Shafran was convicted of abusive sexual conduct and an unenumerated Article 134 offense for providing alcohol to a person under the age of 21. Although the appellant was acquitted of sexual assault, he received a bad-conduct discharge, a 180-day confinement sentence, and a rank reduction. On appeal, Shafran argued for the first time that the Article 134 specification was flawed. The CAAF affirmed the decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals (CGCCA), which affirmed the findings and decisions in the case. According to the CAAF, the specification met the “maximum liberality” standard applicable when such defects are not challenged at trial.
Background of the Case
Boatswain’s Mate Third Class, Andrew J. Shafran, was tried by a general court-martial and was found guilty of one count of abusive sexual conduct under Article 120(d) and another count under Article 134 of the UCMJ. The Article 134 charge alleged that the appellant provided several alcoholic beverages to E.F., a civilian below the age of 21, in the presence of other junior enlisted members of the Coast Guard and Air Force, which purportedly undermined good order and discipline and discredited the armed forces. Shafran was declared not guilty of a separate charge of sexual assault.
During the trial, Shafran did not contest the Article 134 specification. After the United States CGCCA affirmed the conviction, he appealed to the CAAF, asserting for the first time that the Article 134 charge did not state an offense since it did not expressly insinuate that his actions were either “wrongful” or “unlawful,” which are generally needed to establish a criminal offense.
Legal Issue and Analysis
The main issue, in this case, was whether the Article 134 specification failed to articulate an offense because of the basic absence of a clear assertion that the conduct was wrongful. The CAAF applied the “maximum liberality” standard, which permits courts to uphold specifications contested for the first time on appeal as long as they provide sufficient notice of the offense and protection against double jeopardy.
The court analyzed the wording of the specification and concluded that, even though the term “wrongful” was not used, the specification sufficiently described misconduct. Moreover, the court found that the factual allegations (supplying alcohol to a civilian under the age of 21) were sufficient to notify the appellant of the charges and fulfill the necessary elements under Article 134. Therefore, the absence of the term “wrongful” did not undermine the specification, especially since Shafran did not claim he was confused at trial or assert that the charge misled him.
Conclusion
The CAAF concluded that the Article 134 specification, despite not explicitly claiming that Shafran’s conduct was “wrongful” or “unlawful,” adequately articulated an offense under the UCMJ. Consequently, the court upheld the ruling of the United States CGCCA, confirming the appellant’s conviction and sentence.
Click here to read the full opinion.
Contact a Norfolk Military Criminal Defense Lawyer
If you or someone you know is facing military charges, contact a skilled Norfolk military criminal defense lawyer at The Griffin Law Firm for legal help.