## Facts

- Smith, a cadet at the United States Coast Guard Academy, was court-martialed for sexual assault–related offenses involving another cadet (SR).
- Before the charged events, SR had consensual sex with a Coast Guard member; disclosure could have harmed her standing because such relations were prohibited.
- After Smith confronted SR about a rumor of that encounter, SR initially told Smith it was non-consensual, then later admitted it was consensual.
- Smith and SR later engaged in sexual relations that were also prohibited even if consensual.
- When Smith became the subject of an investigation, SR reported that her sexual relations with Smith were non-consensual, leading to charges.
- The defense sought to impeach SR by introducing evidence that she previously falsely described a consensual sexual encounter as non-consensual to protect her career, arguing motive to fabricate and credibility.
- The military judge permitted evidence that SR lied about a serious “indiscretion” that could have harmed her career, but excluded identifying the “indiscretion” as a prior sexual encounter and excluded the specific context that she had falsely alleged non-consent.
- Smith was convicted; the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; Smith petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), and a timeliness question arose due to reconsideration proceedings at the lower appellate court.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment and Mil. R. Evid. 412 required admitting evidence that the complaining witness previously falsely claimed a consensual sexual encounter was non-consensual, where offered to show credibility and motive to fabricate.
2. For Article 67(b), UCMJ, whether the 60-day period to petition CAAF runs from the service court’s original decision or from formal notice of the decision resolving a timely motion for reconsideration.

## Decision

- CAAF held the military judge erred by restricting impeachment evidence concerning SR’s prior false claim of non-consensual sex.
- CAAF ruled the limitation violated Smith’s confrontation rights because the excluded context was central to the defense theory and credibility assessment.
- CAAF concluded the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in a case turning largely on witness credibility.
- CAAF set aside the findings and sentence and remanded for further proceedings.
- CAAF held Smith’s petition was timely because, when reconsideration is sought at the service court, the 60-day Article 67(b) clock begins upon formal notice of the reconsideration disposition.

## Legal Principles

- Mil. R. Evid. 412’s general bar on evidence of an alleged victim’s other sexual behavior must yield when exclusion would violate the accused’s constitutional rights (Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C)).
- Evidence that a witness previously made a false claim of non-consensual sex may be admissible as impeachment evidence bearing on credibility, bias, and motive to fabricate, rather than as impermissible sexual predisposition evidence.
- A trial court may not so sanitize impeachment evidence that the jury cannot understand its probative force on motive and credibility where those matters are central to the defense.
- When a timely motion for reconsideration is filed at a Court of Criminal Appeals, the “decision” triggering Article 67(b)’s 60-day petition period is the reconsideration disposition, and the period runs from formal notice of that disposition.

## Conclusion

CAAF reversed Smith’s affirmed conviction because excluding the specific context of the complainant’s prior false claim of non-consensual sex unconstitutionally curtailed impeachment under the Confrontation Clause despite Mil. R. Evid. 412, and CAAF also clarified that Article 67(b)’s petition deadline runs from formal notice of the service court’s reconsideration decision.


United States v. Smith, 68 M.J. 445 (C.A.A.F. 2010)