Standard of Review

  1. bestmilitarydefenseucmjdefenselawyer90Virtually every military courtwhich has addressed the issuerecognizes that it[918(b)] is based upon [Federal] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 23(c), and attempts, as best it can, to adopt the federal practice. Schinasi at 102.
  2. Specific findings on an ultimate issue of guilt or innocence are subject to the sameappellate review as a general finding of guilt, while other special findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Jones , 2009 WL 1508418, (A.F. Ct. Crim. App) (unpublished).
  3. The test for legal sufficiency is whether, considering the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); United States v. Quintanilla, 56 M.J. 37, 82 (C.A.A.F.2001); United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A.1987); United States v. Jones , 2009 WL 1508418 at 3.
  4. The test for factual sufficiency is whether, after weighing the evidence in the recordof trial and allowing for the fact that we did not personally see and hear the witnesses, we ourselves are convinced of the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Turner, 25 M.J. at 325. We review legal and factual sufficiency de novo. Article 66(c), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. ยง 866(c); United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394, 399 (C.A.A.F. 2002). United States v. Jones , 2009 WL 1508418 at 3.