## Facts

- Jerry Webster, a U.S. Coast Guard member, and Petty Officer T., a Coast Guard petty officer, had socialized a few times and had previously held hands and kissed.
- On the charged date, Webster and Petty Officer T. were alone at Petty Officer T.’s apartment and began kissing.
- Webster asked to go to Petty Officer T.’s bedroom; she refused.
- Webster then asked to go into a closet; Petty Officer T. refused again.
- Petty Officer T. testified Webster pulled her down to the living-room floor; she got up and asked him to leave.
- Petty Officer T. walked toward the front door area, which was near the kitchen.
- In the kitchen, Petty Officer T. testified Webster backed her up against the counter.
- Petty Officer T. told Webster “no” five more times during the kitchen encounter.
- Webster had sexual intercourse with Petty Officer T. despite her repeated refusals.
- Petty Officer T. testified she did not attempt to flee, did not scream, and did not push Webster away; she was angry but did not fear Webster would harm her.
- At a Coast Guard court-martial, Webster was convicted of rape under Article 120, UCMJ (then in effect), and also convicted of violating “general regulations” under Article 92, UCMJ, including a Coast Guard Personnel Manual provision addressing inappropriate senior/subordinate relationships (Personnel Manual 8‑H‑5, Commandant Instruction M1000.6A).
- Webster appealed to the United States Coast Guard Court of Military Review, challenging the rape conviction for legal insufficiency and disputing whether the cited Coast Guard instructions could support Article 92 convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove rape “by force and without consent” under Article 120, UCMJ, when the complainant repeatedly said “no” but did not scream, flee, physically resist, or testify that she feared bodily harm.
2. Whether the Coast Guard Personnel Manual provisions relied on for the Article 92 specifications qualified as “lawful general regulations” punishable under Article 92, UCMJ.

## Decision

- The United States Coast Guard Court of Military Review affirmed Webster’s rape conviction.
- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational factfinder to find intercourse was accomplished by force and without consent, based on the complainant’s repeated verbal refusals and Webster’s physical conduct that restrained or overrode her expressed opposition.
- The court rejected the claim that proof of screaming, physical resistance, or fear of bodily harm was required to establish force and lack of consent on these facts.
- The court set aside the Article 92 convictions that depended on the cited Coast Guard Personnel Manual regulation(s), concluding that the provisions at issue did not support punishment as “lawful general regulations” under Article 92.
- The case is later noted as affirmed on other grounds by the Court of Military Appeals. See United States v. Webster, 40 M.J. 384 (C.M.A. 1994).

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is legally sufficient if, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational factfinder could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Under Article 120 (as then written), “force” and “without consent” may be proven through repeated verbal refusals and the accused’s physical control or coercion that overcomes the victim’s expressed opposition; the law does not require the victim to scream, flee, or physically fight.
- A victim’s lack of physical resistance or lack of fear testimony does not, by itself, establish consent or defeat proof of force when other evidence shows clear nonconsent and coercive conduct.
- Prior consensual contact (such as kissing) does not create continuing consent to sexual intercourse on a later occasion.
- For Article 92, the government must prove the accused violated a “lawful general regulation”; internal personnel-manual provisions that are not properly established as punitive general regulations cannot serve as the sole basis for an Article 92 conviction.

## Conclusion

United States v. Webster, 37 M.J. 670 (1993), affirmed a Coast Guard member’s rape conviction where the complainant repeatedly said “no” and the accused used physical control to proceed despite her refusals, even though she did not scream, flee, or physically resist and did not claim fear of harm; the court also set aside Article 92 findings predicated on certain Coast Guard Personnel Manual provisions because they could not support conviction as “lawful general regulations.”
