## Facts

- Senior Master Sergeant George E. Rollins, U.S. Air Force, was tried by general court-martial for committing an indecent act with his under-18 brother-in-law, identified as JG.
- Rollins drove JG to an adult bookstore and purchased a pornographic magazine for JG.
- After returning to the car, Rollins drove to another location and parked behind a supermarket.
- Rollins handed the pornographic magazine to JG and suggested that they masturbate together while looking at the magazine.
- JG refused Rollins’s suggestion and got out of the car.
- The members convicted Rollins of committing an indecent act with JG under Article 134, UCMJ, based on giving the pornographic magazine to the minor and suggesting mutual masturbation.
- Rollins appealed, arguing (1) the conduct was protected by the First Amendment and (2) the evidence was insufficient because JG did not agree to masturbate, so the act was not “with another person.”
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 134 could punish Rollins’s conduct without violating the First Amendment where the conduct included giving a pornographic magazine to a minor and suggesting mutual masturbation.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove an indecent act “with another person” when the minor refused to participate and no mutual masturbation occurred.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that the First Amendment did not bar the conviction because the charged misconduct was sexual impropriety involving a minor, not protected expression as such.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to satisfy the “with another person” requirement because Rollins’s actions were directed at and involved JG as the intended participant in the indecent episode, even though JG refused.
- The judgment of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Article 134 may punish indecent acts involving minors when the accused’s conduct is service-discrediting or prejudicial to good order and discipline.
- The First Amendment does not shield conduct directed toward sexual exploitation or sexualized interaction with a minor merely because words or expressive material are used as part of the misconduct.
- For an indecent act “with another person” under Article 134, the other person’s agreement or physical participation is not required when the accused’s indecent behavior is aimed at, involves, and occurs in the presence of that person as the intended participant.
- Evidence is legally sufficient if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

United States v. Rollins held that a servicemember’s act of giving pornography to a minor relative and suggesting mutual masturbation constitutes an indecent act punishable under Article 134, that the First Amendment does not bar punishment of this type of sexual misconduct involving a child, and that the “with another person” element can be met even when the child refuses to participate.


United States v. Rollins, 61 M.J. 338 (2005)