United
States v. Mitchell, 66 M.J. 176 (the intent
element of indecent assault may be
satisfied, in the case of an accomplice, by proof that the accomplice
shared in
the perpetrator’s criminal purpose and intended to facilitate the
intent of the
perpetrator with respect to the commission of the offense; when an
accused
pleads guilty to aiding and abetting an indecent assault, the accused
must
admit to sharing in the perpetrator’s criminal intent to gratify the
lust or
sexual desires of the perpetrator; the accused’s admissions must
objectively
support a military judge’s finding that:
(1) the accused possessed the specific intent to facilitate the
commission of the indecent assault; (2) the accused had a guilty
knowledge; (3)
the indecent assault was being committed by someone; and (4) the
accused
assisted or participated in the commission of the indecent assault).
(in this case, appellant’s
pleas of guilty to
committing an indecent assault, by aiding and abetting a fellow Marine
to have
sexual intercourse with the victim was provident, despite appellant’s
objection
that the plea inquiry did not demonstrate that he acted with the
specific
intent to gratify his own lust or sexual desire; appellant admitted
that he
acted with the specific intent to gratify the perpetrator’s lust or
sexual
desires; in addition, appellant admitted that he intended to facilitate
the
perpetrator’s commission of the indecent assault, knew that the
perpetrator had
indecently assaulted the victim, and encouraged the perpetrator’s
commission of
the indecent assault; the military judge was not required to elicit
facts from
appellant demonstrating that he intended to gratify his own lust or
sexual
desires).
United
States v. Ayers, 54 MJ 85 (evidence was legally
insufficient to show that alleged victim of indecent assaults did not
consent
where: (1) she knew the appellant was being flirtatious; (2) she
invited
herself to a movie in the day room, sneaked out of her barracks room,
and
voluntarily followed appellant into a conference room; (3) she admitted
that
she was interested in and infatuated with appellant; (4) she admitted
she was a
willing participant; (5) she once waited for appellant to return when
he left
briefly; (6) she cooperated with appellant’s instructions as he began
to
massage her; (7) she stated that she did not consider the acts an
assault or rape;
(8) she called appellant and talked to him several times over the
following few
days; (9) she voluntarily met with him again; (10) she did not report
the
incident until summoned to the commander’s office; and (11) her
testimony, in
sum, was that there was no unwanted sexual touching).