## Facts

- Sergeant Claude B. Carson, Jr., a U.S. Army military police supervising desk sergeant, oversaw junior enlisted MPs, including 20-year-old PVT G at her first duty station.
- Over an approximately 18-month period, Carson faced multiple charges; he was convicted at a judge-alone general court-martial of five specifications of maltreatment (Article 93, UCMJ) and three specifications of indecent exposure (Article 134, UCMJ), and acquitted of other alleged misconduct.
- The reviewed maltreatment specification arose from a duty-shift incident at the MP station on June 29, 1997.
- PVT G testified Carson called her into the desk area; when she arrived, Carson stood up with his penis exposed, naked from the waist down, with his pants on the floor.
- According to PVT G, Carson drew attention to himself, made no effort to cover himself, and positioned himself so she was required to look in his direction.
- PVT G later stated the incident made her feel like a victim.
- The defense sought a finding of not guilty on maltreatment charges, arguing the government had not shown the victims experienced actual physical or mental pain or suffering; the military judge rejected that argument.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding Article 93 does not require proof of actual physical or mental pain or suffering.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted review limited to the legal sufficiency of the maltreatment conviction involving PVT G given the asserted lack of proof of pain or suffering.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 93, UCMJ, requires proof that the accused’s conduct caused the alleged victim actual physical or mental pain or suffering.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the maltreatment conviction involving PVT G absent proof of actual pain or suffering.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the service court’s decision and left the findings and sentence undisturbed.
- The court held Article 93 does not require proof of actual physical or mental pain or suffering; the inquiry is whether the conduct, viewed objectively under the circumstances, amounted to cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment.
- Applying the legal-sufficiency standard, the court held a rational factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Carson maltreated PVT G by intentionally exposing his genitals to her in the workplace while acting as her superior.
- The court treated the charged conduct as abusive, unwarranted, and serving no lawful military purpose, and therefore within Article 93’s prohibition.

## Legal Principles

- Article 93 maltreatment is assessed by an objective standard: whether the superior’s conduct, in context, constitutes cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment of a person subject to the superior’s orders.
- The government need not prove the victim experienced measurable physical or mental pain or suffering to establish maltreatment under Article 93.
- Abusive sexual misconduct or sexual harassment by a superior toward subordinates, including workplace indecent exposure, can constitute maltreatment when it is unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose.
- Legal sufficiency is tested by whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Carson’s Article 93 conviction based on an objective assessment of his conduct, ruling that intentional workplace indecent exposure to a subordinate can constitute maltreatment even without proof that the subordinate suffered actual physical or mental pain or suffering.


United States v. Carson, 57 M.J. 410 (C.A.A.F. 2002)