(a) Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, or Broadcasting:
2022 (October Term)
United States v. Mays, 83 M.J. 277 (in this case, the evidence was legally sufficient to find appellant guilty of attempted indecent viewing where he attempted to view visual images of a person’s private area by holding his cell phone over a shower stall in which that person was showering; an attempted viewing of an object can be accomplished not only by attempting to view the object itself but also by attempting to view a contemporaneously produced visual image of the object; accordingly, an attempted viewing of a person’s private area through the medium of a cell phone is enough to violate Article 120c(a)(1), UCMJ, as appellant did in this case; not only is the meaning of the term “viewing” in Article 120c(a)(1), UCMJ, broad enough to cover viewing the private area, it is broad enough to cover viewing a contemporaneously produced visual image of the private area of a person; and the rule of lenity is inapplicable where there is no substantial ambiguity about whether an accused can violate Article 120c(a)(1), UCMJ, by viewing a contemporaneously produced visual image of the private area of a person).
(b) Forcible Pandering:
(c) Indecent Exposure: