2023 (October Term)
United States v. Wilson, 84 M.J. 383 (to the extent that United States v. Morrison, 52 MJ 117 (CAAF 1999), may be viewed as standing for the proposition that (a) intent is not "in issue" in those sexual assault cases where the underlying conduct, standing alone, is overtly sexual in nature, and (b) under such circumstances "intent evidence" automatically fails to survive a MRE 403 analysis or to meet the second prong of the three prong MRE 404(b) evidentiary test, that conclusion is not supported by CAAF's other case law; in a series of precedents over the years, CAAF has held that intent is always at issue in a criminal case—even when the defense chooses not to contest it).
(motive evidence is used to demonstrate that the accused committed the criminal acts with which he is charged; intent evidence is used to demonstrate the accused's state of mind when he committed those acts).
2018 (October Term)
United States v. Hale, 78 M.J. 268 (members are permitted to consider evidence of other acts admitted under MRE 404(b) to prove the requisite intent for an offense).
2013 (September Term)
United States v. Kearns, 73 M.J. 177 (the government is free to prove appellant’s intent by circumstantial evidence).
2011 (September Term)
United States v. Vela, 71 M.J. 283 (intent, like other mental states, can be shown by circumstantial evidence).
2000
United
States v. Tanksley, 54 MJ 169 (a pattern of
lustful
intent, established in one set of specifications, can be used by
factfinders as
proof of lustful intent in a different set of specifications).