United States v. Lomax

Summary

The court reviews the appellant’s rape conviction and challenges to instructions concerning principals, aiding and abetting, causation, and a duty to interfere. It concludes that the instructions were not plainly erroneous and that the evidence supported guilt under either an aiding-and-abetting or participation theory. The court denies the petition for a new trial but reduces the affirmed sentence because of substantial disparity with the sentences imposed on co-actors.

Holdings

1. The principals instruction was not plainly erroneous because, read as a whole, it required purposive conduct and did not permit conviction based solely on accidental conduct, mere presence, or failure to prevent the offense.
2. It was not error to instruct that appellant had a duty to interfere where the evidence supported a finding that he intentionally caused the peril or aided and abetted the offense.
3. The evidence amply supported appellant's guilt of rape as either an aider or abettor or a participant, and the court need not determine which theory the members relied upon.
4. The petition for a new trial was denied because the affidavits would not probably produce a more favorable result, one affidavit did not present newly discovered evidence, and another improperly sought to impeach the members' deliberative process.
5. Although lesser sentences imposed on co-actors do not alone require sentence reduction, the serious disparity in closely related cases, absent a good and cogent reason, warranted amelioration of appellant's sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the principals instruction was plainly erroneous because it did not expressly state that aiding, abetting, or causing the commission of the offense must be willful or purposive.
2. Whether the instruction improperly imposed a duty on appellant to interfere with or report the rape.
3. Whether the evidence supported appellant's rape conviction under either an aider-and-abettor or participant theory.
4. Whether affidavits and other materials warranted a new trial under Article 73, UCMJ.
5. Whether the substantial disparity between appellant's sentence and the sentences of closely related co-actors warranted sentence relief.

Disposition

other