## Facts

- Ensign H. was a trainee pilot in the United States Coast Guard’s flight school; Navy Lieutenant Russell Coble was an instructor pilot who asked to be her instructor.
- During training, Coble and Ensign H. had sexually charged conversations that escalated into phone sex and flirtatious behavior.
- After Ensign H.’s last training flight, she told Coble they were “never going to have sex,” and Coble acknowledged the statement.
- While staying at a hotel for training, Coble, Ensign H., and other instructors drank alcohol together. Coble left his room card near Ensign H., and later texted to invite her to his room.
- Ensign H. took the key but texted Coble declining and returned to her own room.
- Coble went to Ensign H.’s room. When she opened the door, he kissed her. Ensign H. said no and tried to stop the encounter.
- Ensign H. reported that Coble forced her into sexual intercourse and held her wrists down during the act.
- Ensign H. reported the assault the same day and later made a recorded pretext phone call to Coble with Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) involvement.
- During the call, Coble acknowledged Ensign H. said “no” and “stop,” but claimed he believed she was joking and that he did not force her.
- After the call, NCIS interviewed Coble; he denied going to Ensign H.’s room and denied having sex with her.
- Coble was charged and convicted at a contested general court-martial of sexual assault (Article 120, UCMJ), violating a lawful general order (Article 92, UCMJ), and making a false official statement (Article 107, UCMJ). The approved sentence included dismissal and three years’ confinement.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to sustain the sexual-assault conviction.
2. Whether trial counsel’s closing and rebuttal arguments constituted prosecutorial misconduct warranting relief.
3. Whether the military judge erred by admitting opinion testimony from a commander that Coble was untruthful, and if so, whether any error required reversal.

## Decision

- The Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and the sentence.
- The court concluded the findings and sentence were correct in law and fact and found no error that materially prejudiced Coble’s substantial rights under Articles 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.
- The court rejected Coble’s factual-sufficiency challenge, finding the record supported the conclusion that the sexual act occurred without Ensign H.’s consent.
- The court found no basis for relief on the closing-argument claims, concluding the challenged argument did not warrant reversal under the applicable prejudice analysis.
- The court upheld the admission of the commander’s opinion testimony about Coble’s truthfulness, finding no reversible abuse of discretion (or no prejudice sufficient to justify relief).

## Legal Principles

- Under Article 66(c), UCMJ, a service Court of Criminal Appeals independently reviews legal and factual sufficiency and may weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility when determining whether guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Under Article 59(a), UCMJ, appellate relief generally requires a showing of error that materially prejudices the accused’s substantial rights.
- Claims of improper argument are evaluated by considering whether argument was improper and, if so, whether it caused prejudice when viewed in context of the entire trial, including the military judge’s instructions and the strength of the evidence.
- Members are instructed that counsel’s arguments are not evidence; such instructions can reduce the risk of prejudice from borderline or challenged comments.
- Opinion testimony about a witness’s character for truthfulness may be admissible with an adequate foundation under the Military Rules of Evidence (similar in function to Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a)), subject to the military judge’s discretion and limits designed to avoid unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

United States v. Coble is an intermediate military appellate decision in which the NMCCA affirmed a Navy lieutenant’s convictions—including sexual assault—arising from an encounter with a Coast Guard flight student after she said no and stop, and later statements by the accused that conflicted with a recorded pretext call and his NCIS interview; the court held the evidence supported the findings and that the asserted trial errors involving closing argument and opinion testimony about truthfulness did not justify setting aside the findings or sentence.


United States v. Coble, 2017 WL 712787 (2017)