81 FR 78576 - Manual for Courts-Martial; Publication of Supplementary Materials
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 216 (November 8, 2016)
Office of the Secretary
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 216 (November 8, 2016)
| Page Range | 78576-78589 | |
| FR Document | 2016-26947 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 78576-78589] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-26947] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0110] Manual for Courts-Martial; Publication of Supplementary Materials AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), Department of Defense. ACTION: Publication of Discussion and Analysis (Supplementary Materials) accompanying the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 ed.) (MCM). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The JSC hereby publishes Supplementary Materials accompanying the MCM as amended by Executive Orders 13643, 13669, 13696, 13730, and 13740. These changes have not been coordinated within the Department of Defense under DoD Directive 5500.1, ``Preparation, Processing and Coordinating Legislation, Executive Orders, Proclamations, Views Letters and Testimony,'' June 15, 2007, and do not constitute the official position of the Department of Defense, the Military Departments, or any other Government agency. These Supplementary Materials have been approved by the JSC and the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and shall be applied in conjunction with the rule with which they are associated. The Discussions are effective insofar as the Rules they supplement are effective, but may not be applied earlier than the date of publication in the Federal Register. DATES: These Supplementary Materials are effective as of November 8, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Major Harlye S. Carlton, USMC, (703) 963-9299 or [email protected]. The JSC Web site is located at: http://jsc.defense.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments: The JSC solicited public comments for these changes to the MCM via the Federal Register on October 23, 2012 (77 FR 64854-64887, Docket ID: DoD-2012-OS-0129), held a public meeting on December 11, 2012, and published the JSC response to public comments via the Federal Register on March 5, 2013 (78 FR 14271-14272, Docket ID: DoD-2012-OS-0129). The amendments to the Discussion and Analysis of the MCM are as follows: Annex Section 1. Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, is amended as follows: (a) Article 120 is amended to read as follows: ``120 Rape and sexual assault generally ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rape................................ Mandatory DD \5\....... Life \4\............... Total. Sexual Assault...................... Mandatory DD \5\....... 30 yrs................. Total. Aggravated Sexual Contact........... DD, BCD................ 20 yrs................. Total. Abusive Sexual Contact.............. DD, BCD................ 7 yrs.................. Total.'' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (b) Article 120b is inserted to read as follows: ``120b Rape and sexual assault of a child ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rape of a Child..................... Mandatory DD \5\....... Life \4\............... Total. Sexual Assault of a Child........... Mandatory DD \5\....... 30 yrs................. Total. Sexual Abuse of a Child: Cases Involving Sexual Contact.. DD, BCD................ 20 yrs................. Total. Other Cases..................... DD, BCD................ 15 yrs................. Total.'' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (c) Article 120c is inserted to read as follows: ``120c Other sexual misconduct ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indecent Viewing.................... DD, BCD................ 1 yr................... Total. Indecent Recording.................. DD, BCD................ 5 yrs.................. Total. Broadcasting or Distributing of an DD, BCD................ 7 yrs.................. Total. Indecent Recording. [[Page 78577]] Forcible Pandering.................. DD, BCD................ 12 yrs................. Total. Indecent Exposure................... DD, BCD................ 1 yr................... Total.'' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (d) The following Note is inserted after Article 120c to read as follows: ``[Note: The Article 120, 120b, and 120c maximum punishments apply to offenses committed after 28 June 2012. See Appendices 23, 27, and 28.]'' (e) Article 125 is amended to read as follows: ``125 Forcible sodomy; bestiality ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forcible sodomy..................... Mandatory DD \5\....... Life \4\............... Total. Bestiality.......................... DD, BCD................ 5 yrs.................. Total.'' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (f) Article 134 abusing public animal is amended to read as follows: ``134 Animal abuse ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abuse, neglect, or abandonment of an BCD.................... 1 yr................... Total. animal. Abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a BCD.................... 2yrs................... Total. public animal. Sexual act with an animal or cases DD, BCD................ 5 yrs.................. Total.'' where the accused caused the serious injury or death of the animal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (g) Article 134 Assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, robbery, sodomy, arson, or burglary is amended to read as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134 With intent to commit voluntary DD, BCD................ 10 yrs................. Total.'' manslaughter, robbery, forcible sodomy, arson, or burglary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (h) Article 134 Indecent conduct is inserted to read as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 134 Indecent conduct................ DD, BCD................ 5 yrs.................. Total.'' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (i) The Notes are amended by adding note \5\ after note \4.\ `` \5.\ A dishonorable discharge can be reduced to a bad-conduct discharge by the convening authority in accordance with a pretrial agreement.'' Section 2. Appendix 12A of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, is inserted to read as follows: ``APPENDIX 12A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES This chart was compiled for convenience purposes only and is not the ultimate authority for specific lesser included offenses. Lesser offenses are those which are necessarily included in the offense charged. See Article 79. Depending on the factual circumstances in each case, the offenses listed below may be considered lesser included. The elements of the proposed lesser included offense should be compared with the elements of the greater offense to determine if the elements of the lesser offense are derivative of the greater offense and vice versa. The ``elements test'' is the proper method for determining lesser included offenses. See Appendix 23. Attempts to commit an offense may constitute a lesser included offense and are not listed. See Article 80. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article Offense Lesser included offense ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 77.................. Principals.............. See Part IV, Para. 1. 78.................. Accessory after the fact See Part IV, Para. 2. 79.................. Conviction of lesser See Part IV, Para. 3. included offenses. 80.................. Attempts................ See Part IV, Para. 4. 81.................. Conspiracy.............. See Part IV, Para. 5. 82.................. Solicitation............ 83.................. Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation. 84.................. Effecting unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation. 85.................. Desertion............... Art. 86. 86.................. Absence without leave... [[Page 78578]] 87.................. Missing movement........ --Design................ Art. 87 (neglect); Art. 86. --Neglect............... Art. 86. 88.................. Contempt toward officials. 89.................. Disrespect toward a Art. 117. superior commissioned officer. 90.................. Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer. --Striking superior Art. 90 (drawing or commissioned officer in lifting up a weapon or execution of office. offering violence to superior commissioned officer); Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon; assault or assault consummated by a battery upon commissioned officer not in the execution of office). --Drawing or lifting up Art. 128 (simple a weapon or offering assault; assault with a violence to superior dangerous weapon; commissioned officer in assault upon a execution of office. commissioned officer not in the execution of office). --Willfully disobeying Art. 92; Art. 89. lawful order of superior commissioned officer. 91.................. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer. --Striking or assaulting Art. 128 (simple warrant, assault; assault noncommissioned, or consummated by a petty officer in the battery; assault with a execution of office. dangerous weapon; assault upon warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer not in the execution of office). --Disobeying a warrant, Art. 92. noncommissioned, or petty officer. --Treating with contempt Art. 117. or being disrespectful in language or deportment toward warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office. 92.................. Failure to obey order or regulation. 93.................. Cruelty and maltreatment 94.................. Mutiny and sedition..... --Mutiny by creating Art. 90; Art. 116; Art. violence or disturbance. 128 (simple assault). --Mutiny by refusing to Art. 90 (willful obey orders or perform disobedience of duties. commissioned officer); Art. 91 (willful disobedience of warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer); Art. 92. --Sedition.............. Art. 116; Art. 128 (assault). 95.................. Resistance, flight, breach of arrest, and escape. --Resisting apprehension Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery). 96.................. Releasing prisoner without proper authority. --Suffering a prisoner Art. 96 (neglect). to escape through design. 97.................. Unlawful detention...... 98.................. Noncompliance with procedural rules. 99.................. Misbehavior before the enemy. --Running away.......... Art. 85 (desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or important service); Art. 86 (absence without authority; going from appointed place of duty). --Endangering safety of Art. 92. a command, unit, place, ship, or military property. --Casting away arms or Art. 108. ammunition. --Cowardly conduct...... Art. 85 (desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or important service); Art. 86; Art. 99 (running away). --Quitting place of duty Art. 86 (going from to plunder or pillage. appointed place of duty). 100................. Subordinate compelling surrender. 101................. Improper use of a countersign. 102................. Forcing a safeguard..... 103................. Captured or abandoned property. 104................. Aiding the enemy........ 105................. Misconduct as a prisoner 106................. Spies................... 106a................ Espionage............... 107................. False official statement 108................. Military property of the United States--sale, loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition. --Willfully damaging Art. 108 (damaging military property. military property through neglect); Art. 109 (willfully damaging non-military property). --Willfully suffering Art. 108 (through military property to be neglect suffering damaged. military property to be damaged). --Willfully destroying Art. 108 (through military property. neglect destroying military property; willfully damaging military property; through neglect damaging military property); Art. 109 (willfully destroying non-military property; willfully damaging non- military property). --Willfully suffering Art. 108 (through military property to be neglect suffering destroyed. military property to be destroyed; willfully suffering military property to be damaged; through neglect suffering military property to be damaged). --Willfully losing Art. 108 (through military property. neglect losing military property). --Willfully suffering Art. 108 (through military property to be neglect suffering lost. military property to be lost). [[Page 78579]] --Willfully suffering Art. 108 (through military property to be neglect suffering sold. military property to be sold). --Willfully suffering Art. 108 (through military property to be neglect suffering wrongfully disposed of. military property to be wrongfully disposed of in the manner alleged). 109................. Property other than military property of the United States-- waste, spoilage, or destruction. 110................. Improper hazarding of vessel. --Willfully and Art. 110 (negligently wrongfully hazarding a hazarding a vessel). vessel. --Willfully and Art. 110 (negligently wrongfully suffering a suffering a vessel to vessel to be hazarded. be hazarded). 111................. Drunken or reckless operation of vehicle, aircraft, or vessel. --Reckless, wanton, or Art. 110. impaired operation or physical control of a vessel. --Drunken operation of a Art. 110; Art. 112. vehicle, vessel, or aircraft while drunk or with a blood or breath alcohol concentration in violation of the described per se standard. 112................. Drunk on Duty........... 112a................ Wrongful use, possession, etc., of controlled substances. --Wrongful use of Art. 112a (wrongful controlled substance. possession of controlled substance). --Wrongful manufacture Art. 112a (wrongful of controlled substance. possession of controlled substance). --Wrongful introduction Art. 112a (wrongful of controlled substance. possession of controlled substance). --Wrongful possession, Art. 112a (wrongful manufacture, or possession, introduction of a manufacture, or controlled substance introduction of with intent to controlled substance). distribute. 113................. Misbehavior of sentinel or lookout. --Drunk on post......... Art. 112; Art. 92 (dereliction of duty). --Sleeping on post...... Art. 92 (dereliction of duty). --Leaving post.......... Art. 92 (dereliction of duty); Art. 86 (going from appointed place of duty). 114................. Dueling................. 115................. Malingering............. 116................. Riot or breach of peace. --Riot.................. Art. 116 (breach of peace). 117................. Provoking speeches or gestures. 118................. Murder.................. --Premeditated murder Art. 118 (intent to kill and murder during or inflict great bodily certain offenses. harm; act inherently dangerous to another). --All murders under Art. 119 (involuntary Article 118. manslaughter); Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery; aggravated assault). --Murder as defined in Art. 119 (voluntary Article 118(1), (2), manslaughter). and (4). 119................. Manslaughter............ --Voluntary manslaughter Art. 119 (involuntary manslaughter); Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery; aggravated assault). --Involuntary Art. 128 (simple manslaughter. assault; assault consummated by a battery). 119a................ Death or injury of an unborn child. --Killing an unborn Art. 119a (injuring an child. unborn child). --Intentionally killing Art. 119a (killing an an unborn child. unborn child; injuring an unborn child). 120 \1\............. Rape and sexual assault generally. --Rape.................. --By unlawful force.. Art. 120(b)(1)(B); Art. 120(c); Art. 120(d); Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery). --By force causing or Art. 120(a)(1); Art. likely to cause 120(b)(1)(B); Art. death or grievous 120(c); Art. 120(d); bodily harm to any Art. 128 (simple person. assault; assault consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon or other means or force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm; assault intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm). --By threatening or Art. 120(b)(1)(B); Art. placing that other 120(c); Art. 120(d). person in fear that any person would be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping. --By first rendering Art. 120(b)(2); Art. that other person 120(c); Art. 120(d). unconscious. --By administering to Art. 120(c); Art. 128 that person a drug, (simple assault; intoxicant, or other assault consummated by similar substance. a battery). --Sexual Assault..... --By threatening or Art. 120(d). placing that other person in fear. --By causing bodily Art. 120(d); Art. 128 harm to that other (simple assault; person. assault consummated by a battery). --By making a Art. 120(d). fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose. --Inducing a belief Art. 120(d). by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person. --Upon another person Art. 120(d). when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring. --When the other Art. 120(d). person is incapable of consenting. --Aggravated sexual contact. [[Page 78580]] --By unlawful force.. Art. 120(d); Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery). --By force causing or Art. 120(d); Art. 128 likely to cause (simple assault; death or grievous assault consummated by bodily harm to any a battery). person. --By threatening or Art. 120(d). placing that other person in fear that any person would be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping. --By first rendering Art. 120(d); Art. 128 that person (simple assault; unconscious. assault consummated by a battery). --By administering to Art. 120(d); Art. 128 that person a drug, (simple assault; intoxicant, or other assault consummated by similar substance. a battery). --Abusive sexual Art. 128 (simple contact. assault; assault consummated by a battery). 120a................ Stalking................ 120b................ Rape and sexual assault of a child. --Rape of a child....... --Of a child who has Art. 120b(c); Art. 120c. not attained the age of 12. --By force of a child Art. 120b(b); Art. who has attained the 120b(c); Art. 128 age of 12. (assault consummated by a battery upon a child under 16 years). --By threatening or Art. 120b(b); Art. placing in fear a 120b(c). child who has attained the age of 12. --By rendering Art. 120b(b); Art. unconscious a child 120b(c); Art. 128 who has attained the (assault consummated by age of 12. a battery upon a child under 16 years). --By administering a Art. 120b(b); Art. drug, intoxicant, or 120b(c); Art. 128 other similar (assault consummated by substance to a child a battery upon a child who has attained the under 16 years). age of 12. --Sexual assault of a child. --Sexual assault of a Art. 120b(c). child who has not attained the age of 12 involving contact between penis and vulva or anus or mouth. --Sexual assault of a Art. 120b(c). child who has attained the age of 12 involving penetration of vulva or anus or mouth by any part of the body or any object. 120c................ Other sexual misconduct. 121................. Larceny and wrongful appropriation. --Larceny............... Art. 121 (wrongful appropriation). --Larceny of military Art. 121 (wrongful property. appropriation; larceny of property other than military property). 122................. Robbery................. Art. 121 (larceny; wrongful appropriation); Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon; assault intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm) 123................. Forgery................. 123a................ Making, drawing, or uttering check, draft, or order without sufficient funds. 124................. Maiming................. Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon; assault intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm) 125................. Forcible sodomy; bestiality. --Forcible sodomy....... Art. 128 (simple assault; assault consummated by a battery). 126................. Arson................... --Aggravated arson...... Art. 126 (simple arson). 127................. Extortion............... 128................. Assault................. --Assault consummated by Art. 128 (simple a battery. assault). --Assault upon a Art. 128 (simple commissioned, warrant, assault; assault noncommissioned, or consummated by a petty officer. battery). --Assault upon a Art. 128 (simple sentinel or lookout in assault; assault the execution of duty. consummated by a battery). --Assault consummated by Art. 128 (simple a battery upon a child assault; assault under 16 years. consummated by a battery). --Assault with a Art. 128 (simple dangerous weapon or assault; assault other means of force consummated by a likely to produce death battery; (when or grievous bodily harm. committed upon a child under the age of 16 years; assault consummated by a battery upon a child under the age of 16 years)). --Assault in which Art. 128 (simple grievous bodily harm is assault; assault intentionally inflicted. consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon (when committed upon a child under the age of 16 years; assault consummated by a battery upon a child under the age of 16 years)). 129................. Burglary................ Art. 130 (housebreaking). 130................. Housebreaking........... 131................. Perjury................. 132................. Frauds against the United States. 133................. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. 134................. Animal abuse............ 134................. Adultery................ [[Page 78581]] 134................. Assault--with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, forcible sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking. --Assault with intent to Art. 128 (simple murder. assault; assault consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon; assault intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm); Art. 134 (assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter; willful or careless discharge of a firearm). --Assault with intent to Art. 128 (simple commit voluntary assault; assault manslaughter. consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon; assault intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm); Art. 134 (willful or careless discharge of a firearm). --Assault with intent to Art. 128 (simple commit rape or forcible assault; assault sodomy. consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon). --Assault with intent to Art. 128 (simple commit burglary. assault; assault consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon); Art. 134 (assault with intent to commit housebreaking). --Assault with intent to Art. 128 (simple commit robbery, arson, assault; assault or housebreaking. consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon). 134................. Bigamy.................. 134................. Bribery and graft....... --Bribery............... Art. 134 (graft). 134................. Burning with intent to defraud. 134................. Check, worthless, making and uttering--by dishonorably failing to maintain funds. 134................. Child endangerment...... --Child endangerment by Art. 134 (child design. endangerment by culpable negligence). 134................. Child pornography....... --Possessing child Art. 134 (possessing pornography with intent child pornography). to distribute. --Distributing child Art. 134 (possessing pornography. child pornography; possessing child pornography with intent to distribute) --Producing child Art. 134 (possessing pornography. child pornography). 134................. Cohabitation, wrongful.. 134................. Correctional custody-- offenses against. 134................. Debt, dishonorably failing to pay. 134................. Disloyal statements..... 134................. Disorderly conduct, drunkenness. 134................. Drinking liquor with prisoner. 134................. Drunk prisoner.......... 134................. Drunkenness--incapacitat ion for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug. 134................. False or unauthorized pass offenses. --Wrongful use or Art. 134 (same offenses, possession of false or except without the unauthorized military intent to defraud or or official pass, deceive). permit, discharge certificate, or identification card, with the intent to defraud or deceive. 134................. False pretenses, obtaining services under. 134................. False swearing.......... 134................. Firearm, discharging-- through negligence. 134................. Firearm, discharging-- Art. 134 (firearm, willfully, under such discharging--through circumstances as to negligence). endanger human life. 134................. Fleeing scene of accident. 134................. Fraternization.......... 134................. Gambling with a subordinate. 134................. Homicide, negligent..... 134................. Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official. 134................. Indecent conduct........ 134................. Indecent language....... Art. 117 (provoking speeches). 134................. Jumping from vessel into the water. 134................. Kidnapping.............. 134................. Mail: Taking, opening, Art. 121. secreting, destroying, or stealing. 134................. Mails: Depositing or causing to be deposited obscene matters in. 134................. Misprision of serious offense. 134................. Obstructing justice..... 134................. Wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding. 134................. Pandering and prostitution. 134................. Parole, violation of.... 134................. Perjury: Subornation of. 134................. Public record: Altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying. 134................. Quarantine: Medical, Art. 134 (breaking breaking. restriction). [[Page 78582]] 134................. Reckless endangerment... 134................. Restriction, breaking... 134................. Seizure: Destruction, removal, or disposal of property to prevent. 134................. Self-injury without intent to avoid service. 134................. Sentinel or lookout: Offenses against or by. 134................. Soliciting another to commit an offense. 134................. Stolen property: Knowingly receiving, buying, concealing. 134................. Straggling.............. 134................. Testify: Wrongful refusal. 134................. Threat or hoax designed or intended to cause panic or public fear. --Threat................ Art. 134 (communicating a threat); Art. 128 (assault). 134................. Threat, communicating... 134................. Unlawful entry.......... 134................. Weapon: Concealed, carrying. 134................. Wearing unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device or lapel button''. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ This chart only includes the 2012 version of Art. 120. See Appendix 27 and 28 for prior versions. Section 3. The Discussion to Part I of the Manual for Courts- Martial, United States, is amended as follows: (a) The Discussion immediately following paragraph 4 is amended to read as follows: ``The Department of Defense, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security, has published supplementary materials to accompany the Manual for Courts-Martial. These materials consist of a Discussion (accompanying the Preamble, the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and the Punitive Articles), an Analysis, and various appendices. These supplementary materials do not constitute the official views of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the military departments, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or any other authority of the Government of the United States, and they do not constitute rules. Cf., e.g., 5 U.S.C. 551(4). The supplementary materials do not create rights or responsibilities that are binding on any person, party, or other entity (including any authority of the Government of the United States whether or not included in the definition of ``agency'' in 5 U.S.C. 551(1)). Failure to comply with matter set forth in the supplementary materials does not, of itself, constitute error, although these materials may refer to requirements in the rules set forth in the Executive Order or established by other legal authorities (for example, binding judicial precedents applicable to courts-martial) that are based on sources of authority independent of the supplementary materials. See Appendix 21 in this Manual. The 1995 amendment to paragraph 4 of the Preamble eliminated the practice of identifying the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, by a particular year. Historically the Manual had been published in its entirety sporadically (e.g., 1917, 1921, 1928, 1949, 1951, 1969, and 1984) with amendments to it published piecemeal. It was therefore logical to identify the Manual by the calendar year of publication, with periodic amendments identified as ``Changes'' to the Manual. Beginning in 1995, however, a new edition of the Manual was published in its entirety and a new naming convention was adopted. See Exec. Order No. 12960 of May 12, 1995. Beginning in 1995, the Manual was to be referred to as ``Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (19xx edition).'' In 2013, the Preamble was amended to identify new Manuals based on their publication date. Amendments made to the Manual can be researched in the relevant Executive Order as referenced in Appendix 25. Although the Executive Orders were removed from Appendix 25 of the Manual in 2012 to reduce printing requirements, they can be accessed online. See Appendix 25. Section 4. The Discussion to Part II of the Manual for Courts- Martial, United States, is amended as follows: (a) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 307(c)(3) is amended by deleting the first two Notes. (b) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 307(c)(3) is amended by inserting the words ``For Article 134 offenses, also refer to paragraph 60c(6) in Part IV.'' after the words ``How to draft specifications.'' (c) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 307(c)(3) is amended by deleting the Note directly following the words ``(G) Description of offense.'' (d) Part (G)(i) in the Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 307(c)(3) is amended to read as follows: ``(i) Elements. The elements of the offense must be alleged, either expressly or by necessary implication, except that Article 134 specifications must expressly allege the terminal element. See paragraph 60.c.(6) in Part IV. If a specific intent, knowledge, or state of mind is an element of the offense, it must be alleged.'' (e) Part (G)(v) in the Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 307(c)(3) is inserted to read as follows: ``(v) Lesser Included Offenses. The elements of the contemplated lesser included offense should be compared with the elements of the greater offense to determine if the elements of the lesser offense are derivative of the greater offense and vice versa. See discussion following paragraph 3.b.(1)(c) in Part IV and the related analysis in Appendix 23.'' (f) The note immediately following R.C.M. 307(c)(4) is deleted and Discussion is inserted to read as follows: ``The prohibition against unreasonable multiplication of charges addresses those features of military law that increase the potential for overreaching in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. It is based on reasonableness, and has no foundation in Constitutional rights. To determine if charges are unreasonably multiplied, see R.C.M. 906(b)(12). Because prosecutors are free to charge in the alternative, it may be reasonable to charge two or more offenses that arise from one transaction if sufficient doubt exists as to the facts or the law. In no case should both an offense and a lesser included offense thereof be separately charged. See also Part IV, paragraph 3, and R.C.M. 601(e)(2) concerning referral of several offenses.'' (g) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 701(e) is amended by [[Page 78583]] adding the following after ``retribution for such testimony'': ``Counsel must remain cognizant of professional responsibility rules regarding communicating with represented persons.'' (h) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 809(a) is amended to read as follows: ``Article 48 makes punishable ``direct'' contempt, as well as ``indirect'' or ``constructive'' contempt. ``Direct'' contempt is that which is committed in the presence of the court-martial or its immediate proximity. ``Presence'' includes those places outside the courtroom itself, such as waiting areas, deliberation rooms, and other places set aside for the use of the court-martial while it is in session. ``Indirect'' or ``constructive'' contempt is non-compliance with lawful writs, processes, orders, rules, decrees, or commands of the court-martial. A ``direct'' or ``indirect'' contempt may be actually seen or heard by the court-martial, in which case it may be punished summarily. See subsection (b)(1) of this Rule. A ``direct'' or ``indirect'' contempt may also be a contempt not actually observed by the court-martial, for example, when an unseen person makes loud noises, whether inside or outside the courtroom, which impede the orderly progress of the proceedings. In such a case the procedures for punishing contempt are more extensive. See subsection (b)(2) of this Rule. The words ``any person,'' as used in Article 48, include all persons, whether or not subject to military law, except the military judge and foreign nationals outside the territorial limits of the United States who are not subject to the code. The military judge may order the offender removed whether or not contempt proceedings are held. It may be appropriate to warn a person whose conduct is improper that persistence in a course of behavior may result in removal or punishment for contempt. See R.C.M. 804, 806. Each finding of contempt may be separately punished. A person subject to the code who commits contempt may be tried by court-martial or otherwise disciplined under Article 134 for such misconduct in addition to or instead of punishment for contempt. See paragraph 108, Part IV; see also Article 98. The 2011 amendment of Article 48 expanded the contempt power of military courts to enable them to enforce orders, such as discovery orders or protective orders regarding evidence, against military or civilian attorneys. Persons not subject to military jurisdiction under Article 2, having been duly subpoenaed, may be prosecuted in Federal civilian court under Article 47 for neglect or refusal to appear or refusal to qualify as a witness or to testify or to produce evidence.'' (i) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 906(b)(5) is amended to read as follows: ``Each specification may state only one offense. R.C.M. 307(c)(4). A duplicitous specification is one which alleges two or more separate offenses. Lesser included offenses (see paragraph 3, Part IV) are not separate, nor is a continuing offense involving separate acts. The sole remedy for a duplicitous specification is severance of the specification into two or more specifications, each of which alleges a separate offense contained in the duplicitous specification. However, if the duplicitousness is combined with or results in other defects, such as misleading the accused, other remedies may be appropriate. See subsection (b)(3) of this rule. See also R.C.M. 907(b)(3).'' (j) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 906(b)(12) is amended to read as follows: ``Unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings and sentence is a limitation on the military's discretion to charge separate offenses and does not have a foundation in the Constitution. The concept is based on reasonableness and the prohibition against prosecutorial overreaching. In contrast, multiplicity is grounded in the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It prevents an accused from being twice punished for one offense if it is contrary to the intent of Congress. See R.C.M. 907(b)(3). Therefore, a motion for relief from unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings and sentence differs from a motion to dismiss on the grounds of multiplicity. The following non-exhaustive factors should be considered when determining whether two or more offenses are unreasonably multiplied: whether the specifications are aimed at distinctly separate criminal acts; whether they represent or exaggerate the accused's criminality; whether they unreasonably increase his or her exposure to punishment; and whether they suggest prosecutorial abuse of discretion in drafting of the specifications. Because prosecutors are permitted to charge in the alternative based on exigencies of proof, a ruling on this motion ordinarily should be deferred until after findings are entered.'' (k) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 907(b)(3) is amended to read as follows: ``Multiplicity is a legal concept, arising from the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Absent legislative intent to the contrary, an accused cannot be convicted and punished for violations of two or more statutes if those violations arise from a single act. Where Congress intended to impose multiple punishments for the same act, imposition of such sentence does not violate the Constitution. Multiplicity differs from unreasonable multiplication of charges. If two offenses are not multiplicious, they nonetheless may constitute an unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings or sentence. See R.C.M. 906(b)(12). Unreasonable multiplication of charges is a limitation on the military's discretion to charge separate offenses. It does not have a foundation in the Constitution; it is based on reasonableness and the prohibition against prosecutorial overreaching. The military judge is to determine, in his or her discretion, whether the charges constitute unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings or sentencing. See R.C.M. 906(b)(12). To determine if two charges are multiplicious, the practitioner should first determine whether they are based on separate acts. If so, the charges are not multiplicious because separate acts may be charged and punished separately. If the charges are based upon a single act, the practitioner should next determine if Congress intended to impose multiple convictions and punishments for the same act. When there is no overt expression of congressional intent in the relevant statutes, such intent may be inferred based on the elements of the charged statutes and their relationship to each other or other principles of statutory interpretation. If each statute contains an element not contained in the other, it may be inferred that Congress intended they be charged and punished separately. Likewise, if each statute contains the same elements, it may be inferred that Congress did not intend they be charged and punished separately. A lesser included offense will always be multiplicious if charged separately, but offenses do not have to be lesser included to be multiplicious. Ordinarily, a specification should not be dismissed for multiplicity before trial. The less serious of any multiplicious specifications shall be dismissed after findings have been reached. Due consideration must be given, however, to possible post-trial or [[Page 78584]] appellate action with regard to the remaining specification.'' (l) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 910(a)(1) is amended to read as follows: ``See paragraph 3, Part IV, concerning lesser included offenses. When the plea is to a lesser included offense without the use of exceptions and substitutions, the defense counsel should provide a written revised specification to be included in the record as an appellate exhibit. A plea of guilty to a lesser included offense does not bar the prosecution from proceeding on the offense as charged. See also subsection (g) of this rule. A plea of guilty does not prevent the introduction of evidence, either in support of the factual basis for the plea, or, after findings are entered, in aggravation. See R.C.M. 1001(b)(4).'' (m) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 916(j)(2) is amended to read as follows: ``Examples of ignorance or mistake which need only exist in fact include: ignorance of the fact that the person assaulted was an officer; belief that property allegedly stolen belonged to the accused; belief that a controlled substance was really sugar. Examples of ignorance or mistake which must be reasonable as well as actual include: belief that the accused charged with unauthorized absence had permission to go; belief that the accused had a medical ``profile'' excusing shaving as otherwise required by regulation. Some offenses require special standards of conduct (see, for example, paragraph 68, Part IV, Dishonorable failure to maintain sufficient funds); the element of reasonableness must be applied in accordance with the standards imposed by such offenses. Examples of offenses in which the accused's intent or knowledge is immaterial include: Any rape of a child, or any sexual assault or sexual abuse of a child when the child is under 12 years old. However, such ignorance or mistake may be relevant in extenuation and mitigation. See subsection (l)(1) of this rule concerning ignorance or mistake of law.'' (n) The Discussion immediately following R.C.M. 918(a)(1) is amended to read as follows: ``Exceptions and Substitutions. One or more words or figures may be excepted from a specification and, when necessary, others substituted, if the remaining language of the specification, with or without substitutions, states an offense by the accused which is punishable by the court-martial. Changing the date or place of the offense may, but does not necessarily, change the nature or identity of an offense. If A and B are joint accused and A is convicted but B is acquitted of an offense charged, A should be found guilty by excepting the name of B from the specification as well as any other words indicating the offense was a joint one. Lesser Included Offenses. If the evidence fails to prove the offense charged but does prove an offense necessarily included in the offense charged, the fact finder may find the accused not guilty of the offense charged but guilty of the lesser included offense. See paragraph 3 of Part IV concerning lesser included offenses. Offenses arising from the same act or transaction. The accused may be found guilty of two or more offenses arising from the same act or transaction, whether or not the offenses are separately punishable. But see R.C.M. 906(b)(12); 907(b)(3)(B); 1003(c)(1)(C).'' (o) The note immediately following R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(C) is deleted, and the following is added immediately following the last paragraph of the Discussion: ``Multiplicity is addressed in R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B). Unreasonable multiplication of charges is addressed in R.C.M. 906(b)(12).'' Section 5. The Discussion to Part IV of the Manual for Courts- Martial, United States, is amended as follows: (a) The Discussion immediately following paragraph 3.b.(1)(c) is amended to read as follows: ``The ``elements test'' is the proper method for determining lesser included offenses. See United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010); Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989); Appendix 23 of this Manual, Art. 79. Paragraph 3.b.(1) was amended to comport with the elements test, which requires that the elements of the lesser offense must be a subset of the elements of the charged offense. The elements test does not require identical statutory language, and use of normal principles of statutory interpretation is permitted. The elements test is necessary to safeguard the due process requirement of notice to a criminal defendant.'' (b) The following Discussion is added immediately after paragraph 3.b.(5): ``Practitioners must consider lesser included offenses on a case- by-case basis. See United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010); United States v. Alston, 69 M.J. 214 (C.A.A.F. 2010); discussion following paragraph 3.b.(1)(c) above. The lesser included offenses listed in Appendix 12A were amended in 2016 to comport with the elements test; however, practitioners must analyze each lesser included offense on a case-by-case basis. See Appendix 23 of this Manual, Article 79.'' (c) The following Discussion is added immediately after paragraph 60.b: ``The terminal element is merely the expression of one of the clauses under Article 134. See paragraph c below for an explanation of the clauses and rules for drafting specifications. More than one clause may be alleged and proven; however, proof of only one clause will satisfy the terminal element. For clause 3 offenses, the military judge may judicially notice whether an offense is capital. See Mil. R. Evid. 202.'' (d) The following Discussion is added immediately after paragraph 60.c.(6)(a): ``Clauses 1 and 2 are theories of liability that must be expressly alleged in a specification so that the accused will be given notice as to which clause or clauses to defend against. The words ``to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces'' encompass both paragraph c.(2)(a), prejudice to good order and discipline, and paragraph c.(2)(b), breach of custom of the Service. A generic sample specification is provided below: ``In that ____, (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board location), on or about __ 20__, (commit elements of Article 134 clause 1 or 2 offense), and that said conduct (was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces) (and) (was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces).'' If clauses 1 and 2 are alleged together in the terminal element, the word ``and'' should be used to separate them. Any clause not proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be excepted from the specification at findings. See R.C.M. 918(a)(1). See also Appendix 23 of this Manual, Art. 79. Although using the conjunctive ``and'' to connect the two theories of liability is recommended, a specification connecting the two theories with the disjunctive ``or'' is sufficient to provide the accused reasonable notice of the charge against him. See Appendix 23 of this Manual, Art. 134.'' (e) The following replaces the paragraph below ``Discussion'' following paragraph 60.c.(6)(b): ``The words ``an offense not capital'' are sufficient to provide notice to the accused that a clause 3 offense has been charged and are meant to include all crimes and offenses not capital. A generic sample specification for clause 3 offenses is provided below: [[Page 78585]] ``In that ____, (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board location), on or about __ 20__, (commit: address each element), an offense not capital, in violation of (name or citation of statute).'' In addition to alleging each element of the federal statute, practitioners should consider including, when appropriate and necessary, words of criminality (e.g., wrongfully, knowingly, or willfully).'' Section 6. Appendix 21 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, is amended as follows: (a) R.C.M. 306, the last paragraph beginning with ``2016 Amendment,'' is amended to read as follows: ``2016 Amendment: R.C.M. 306(e) implements Section 534(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, P.L. 113-291, 19 December 2014.'' (b) R.C.M. 307(c)(3), after the paragraph beginning with the words, ``2012 Amendment,'' and prior to the line beginning with the words, ``The sources of the lettered subsection'' add the following: ``2016 Amendment: The two notes added in 2012 are removed. The notes were originally added to address the requirement to expressly state the terminal element in specifications under Article 134 and to address lesser included offenses. See United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012); United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011); United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010). In 2016, the Manual was amended to require the terminal element be expressed in Article 134 specifications and to alter the definition of lesser included offenses under Article 79. See paragraphs 3 and 60.c.(6) in Part IV of this Manual.'' (c) R.C.M. 307(c)(3)(A), after the paragraph beginning with the words ``Sample specifications'' delete the paragraph beginning with the words the ``2012 Amendment.'' (d) R.C.M. 307(c)(3)(G), after the paragraph beginning with the words ``Description of offense.'' delete the paragraph beginning with the words the ``2012 Amendment,'' and insert in its place: ``2016 Amendment: The note added in 2012 is removed. The note was originally added to address the requirement to expressly state the terminal element in Article 134 specifications. See United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012); United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).'' (e) R.C.M. 307(c)(3)(G)(i), insert the following language as a new paragraph after the existing paragraph: ``2016 Amendment: This subparagraph was amended and reflects the removal of a note.'' (f) R.C.M. 307(c)(3)(G)(v), insert the following language: ``2016 Amendment: Subparagraph (v) was added to address lesser included offenses and refer practitioners to Article 79 and new Appendix 12A. See paragraph 3 in Part IV and Appendix 12A.'' (g) R.C.M. 307(c)(4), after the paragraph beginning with the words ``2005 Amendment'' delete the paragraph beginning with the words the ``2012 Amendment,'' and insert in its place: ``2016 Amendment: The discussion section was added to R.C.M. 307(c)(4) to clarify the ambiguity between the two distinct concepts of multiplicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges. For analysis related to multiplicity, see R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B) in this Appendix. For analysis related to unreasonable multiplication of charges, see R.C.M. 906(b)(12) in this Appendix. Nothing in the rule or the discussion section should be construed to imply that it would be overreaching for a prosecutor to bring several charges against an accused for what essentially amounts to one transaction if there is a valid legal reason to do so. For example, prosecutors may charge two offenses for exigencies of proof, which is a long accepted practice in military law. See, e.g., United States v. Morton, 69 M.J. 12 (C.A.A.F. 2010). The discussion section emphasizes that a prosecutor is not overreaching or abusing his or her discretion merely because he or she charges what is essentially one act under several different charges or specifications. The language in the discussion section of the 2012 edition of the Manual referring to United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19 (C.A.A.F. 2012), was removed because it is no longer necessary, as the rules themselves have been edited to remove any reference to ``multiplicious for sentencing.'' The example was removed from the discussion section because it overly generalized the concept of unreasonable multiplication of charges.'' (h) R.C.M. 701(e), after the paragraph beginning with the words, ``1986 Amendment,'' and immediately before subparagraph (f), insert the following language: ``2016 Amendment: This rule implements Article 46(b), enacted by section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, P.L. 113-66, 26 December 2013, as amended by section 531(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, P.L. 113-291, 19 December 2014.'' (i) R.C.M. 906(b)(12), delete the paragraph beginning with the words the ``2012 Amendment,'' and insert in its place: ``2016 Amendment: This rule and related discussion is the focal point for addressing unreasonable multiplication of charges. If a practitioner seeks to raise a claim for multiplicity, that concept is addressed in R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B) and related discussion. This rule has been amended. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has recognized that practitioners and the courts have routinely confused the concepts of multiplicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges. See, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19, 23 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (``the terms multiplicity, multiplicity for sentencing, and unreasonable multiplication of charges in military practice are sometimes used interchangeably as well as with uncertain definition''); United States v. Baker, 14 M.J. 361, 372 (C.M.A. 1983) (Cook, J. dissenting) (``[t]hat multiplicity for sentencing is a mess in the military justice system is a proposition with which I believe few people familiar with our system would take issue''). Multiplicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges are two distinct concepts. Unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings and sentence is a limitation on the prosecution's discretion to charge separate offenses. Unreasonable multiplication of charges does not have a foundation in the Constitution but is instead based on the concept of reasonableness and is a prohibition against prosecutorial overreaching. In contrast, multiplicity is based on the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and prevents an accused from being twice punished for one offense if it is contrary to the intent of Congress. A charge may be found not to be multiplicious but at the same time it may be dismissed because of unreasonable multiplication. See United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334, 337-38 (C.A.A.F. 2001). Use of the term ``multiplicity (or multiplicious) for sentencing'' is inappropriate. If a charge is multiplicious, meaning that it violates the Constitutional prohibition against Double Jeopardy, it necessarily results in dismissal of the multiplied offenses, therefore obviating any issue on sentencing with respect to that charge. Campbell, 71 M.J. at 23. A charge should not be found multiplicious for sentencing but not for findings. Thus, [[Page 78586]] the more appropriate term for the military judge's discretionary review of the charges at sentencing is ``unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to sentence.'' Id. at 24. The rule was changed to remove ``multiplicity for sentencing'' from the Manual, eliminating confusion and misuse. Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) were added to the rule. They clarify the distinction between unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings and to sentence. Although these concepts have existed for years (see Michael J. Breslin & LeEllen Coacher, Multiplicity and Unreasonable Multiplication of Charges: A Guide to the Perplexed, 45 A.F. L. Rev. 99 (1998) for a history of the terms), they were not defined in previous editions of the Manual. The definitions were adopted from Quiroz, Campbell, and recommendations from Christopher S. Morgan, Multiplicity: Reconciling the Manual for Courts-Martial, 63 A.F. L. Rev. 23 (2009). It is possible that two offenses are not unreasonably multiplied for findings but are so for sentencing; these additions explain how this can be so. See, e.g., Campbell, 71 M.J. at 25 (military judge did not abuse his discretion by finding that there was not an unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings but that there was an unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to sentence). The discussion sections were added to address concerns that CAAF voiced in dicta in Campbell. In previous editions of the Manual, military judges often used the discussion section in R.C.M. 1003(c)(1) to determine when relief was warranted for unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to sentence. The Campbell court stated in a footnote: ``It is our view that after Quiroz, the language in the Discussion to R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(C) regarding `a single impulse or intent,' is dated and too restrictive. The better approach is to allow the military judge, in his or her discretion, to merge the offense for sentencing purposes by considering the Quiroz factors and any other relevant factor. . . .'' Campbell, 71 M.J. at 24 n.9. The Discussion was changed to address the Quiroz factors and remove any reference to the ``single impulse or intent'' test, as suggested by CAAF. The committee also decided to move the Discussion section from R.C.M. 1003(b)(8)(C) to this rule because R.C.M. 1003 deals exclusively with sentencing and a motion for appropriate relief due to unreasonable multiplication of charges can be raised as an issue for findings or for sentence under this Rule. Therefore, it is more appropriate to address the issue here. For more information on multiplicity and how it relates to unreasonable multiplication of charges, see Michael J. Breslin & LeEllen Coacher, Multiplicity and Unreasonable Multiplication of Charges: A Guide to the Perplexed, 45 A.F. L. Rev. 99 (1998); Christopher S. Morgan, Multiplicity: Reconciling the Manual for Courts- Martial, 63 A.F. L. Rev. 23 (2009); Gary E. Felicetti, Surviving the Multiplicty/LIO Family Vortex, Army Law., Feb. 2011, at 46. The language in the discussion section of the 2012 edition of the Manual referring to the Campbell decision was removed because it is no longer necessary, as the rules themselves have been edited to remove any reference to ``multiplicious for sentencing'' and additional discussion sections were added to eliminate any confusion with the terms.'' (j) R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B), insert the following language as a new paragraph after the existing paragraph: ``2016 Amendment: This rule and related discussion is the focal point for addressing claims of multiplicity. If a practitioner seeks to raise a claim for unreasonable multiplication of charges, that concept is addressed in R.C.M. 906(b)(12) and related discussion. The heading of this rule, which was added in 2016, signifies that this rule deals exclusively with multiplicity, and not unreasonable multiplication of charges. The discussion section of this rule was amended because the committee believed that a more thorough definition of multiplicity was appropriate in light of CAAF's suggestion in United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19, 23 (C.A.A.F. 2012), that the concepts of multiplicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges are often confounded. The discussion of multiplicity is derived from the Supreme Court's holding in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), and CMA's holding in United States v. Teters, 37 M.J. 370 (C.M.A. 1993). The Court in Blockburger wrote: ``[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.'' Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304. Military courts departed from the Blockburger analysis; however, the CMA's decision in Teters clearly re- aligned the military courts with the federal courts, and multiplicity is now determined in the military courts by the Blockburger/Teters analysis outlined in the discussion section. Any reference to the ``single impulse'' or ``fairly embraced'' tests is outdated and should be avoided. Two offenses that arise from the same transaction may not be multiplicious, even if each does not require proof of an element not required to prove the other, if the intent of Congress was that an accused could be convicted of and punished for both offenses arising out of the same act. The Blockburger/Teters analysis applies only when Congress did not intend that the offenses be treated as separate. If Congress intended to subject an accused to multiple punishments for the same transaction, and that intent is clear, the Blockburger/Teters elements comparison is unnecessary. See, e.g., Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 (1983) (``[S]imply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes. . . . Where . . . a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the `same' conduct under Blockburger, a court's task of statutory construction is at an end and the prosecutor may seek and the trial court or jury may impose cumulative punishment under such statutes in a single trial.''). The language in the discussion section of the 2012 edition of the Manual referring to the Campbell decision was removed because it is no longer necessary, as the Rules themselves have been edited to remove any reference to ``multiplicious for sentencing'' and additional discussion sections were added to eliminate any confusion with the terms.'' (k) R.C.M. 916(b), insert the following language immediately following the paragraph beginning with the words ``2007 Amendment'': ``2016 Amendment: Changes to this paragraph are based on section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112-81, 31 December 2011, which superseded the previous paragraph 45, ``Rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct,'' in its entirety and replaces paragraph 45 with ``Rape and sexual assault generally.'' In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 added paragraph 45b, ``Rape and sexual assault of a child,'' and paragraph 45c, ``Other sexual misconduct.'' (l) R.C.M. 916(j), insert the following language immediately following the [[Page 78587]] paragraph beginning with the words ``2007 Amendment'': ``2016 Amendment: Changes to this paragraph are based on section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112-81, 31 December 2011, which superseded the previous paragraph 45, ``Rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct,'' in its entirety and replaces paragraph 45 with ``Rape and sexual assault generally.'' In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 added paragraph 45b, ``Rape and sexual assault of a child,'' and paragraph 45c, ``Other sexual misconduct.'' Paragraph (j)(3) was deleted. The rule reflects changes to Article 120. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that the statutory burden shift to the accused in the 2007 version of Article 120 was unconstitutional and the subsequent burden shift to the government to disprove consent beyond a reasonable doubt once the accused had raised the affirmative defense of consent by a preponderance of the evidence resulted in a legal impossibility. United States v. Prather, 69 M.J. 338 (C.A.A.F. 2011); United States v. Medina, 69 M.J. 462 (C.A.A.F. 2011).'' (m) R.C.M. 920(e)(5)(D), insert the following language immediately following the paragraph beginning with the words ``2007 Amendment'': ``2016 Amendment: Changes to this paragraph are based on section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112-81, 31 December 2011, which superseded the previous paragraph 45, ``Rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct,'' in its entirety and replaces paragraph 45 with ``Rape and sexual assault generally.'' In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 added paragraph 45b, ``Rape and sexual assault of a child,'' and paragraph 45c, ``Other sexual misconduct.'' '' (n) R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(C), delete the paragraph beginning with the words the ``2012 Amendment'' and insert in its place: ``2016 Amendment: This rule was amended. The language in previous editions of the Manual seemed to suggest that an accused could not be punished for offenses that were not separate. This is true only if there is no express statement from Congress indicating that an accused can be punished for two or more offenses that are not separate. See R.C.M. 907(b)(3) and related analysis. Subsections (i) and (ii) were added to distinguish between claims of multiplicity and unreasonable multiplication of charges. As the two concepts are distinct, it is important to address them in separate subsections. See R.C.M. 906(b)(12) for claims of unreasonable multiplication of charges and R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B) for claims of multiplicity. Additionally, the committee decided to move the discussion of the factors in United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001), from this rule to R.C.M. 906(b)(12) because the factors apply to unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings as well as sentence. Because this Rule refers only to sentencing, it is more appropriate to address the military judge's determination of unreasonable multiplication in R.C.M. 906(b)(12), because that Rule covers both findings and sentence. See R.C.M. 906(b)(12) and related analysis. The language in the discussion section of the 2012 edition of the Manual referring to the Campbell decision was removed. Such language is no longer necessary, as the Rules themselves have been edited to remove any reference to ``multiplicious for sentencing'' and the discussion section of R.C.M. 906(b)(12) addresses the Quiroz factors.'' (o) R.C.M. 1004(c)(7)(B), insert the following language immediately following the paragraph beginning with the words ``1994 Amendment'' and immediately prior to the paragraph beginning with the words ``1986 Amendment'': ``2016 Amendment: Changes to this paragraph reflect section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112- 81, 31 December 2011, which superseded the previous paragraph 45, ``Rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct,'' in its entirety and replaces paragraph 45 with ``Rape and sexual assault generally.'' In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 added paragraph 45b, ``Rape and sexual assault of a child,'' and paragraph 45c, ``Other sexual misconduct.'' '' (p) R.C.M. 1004(c)(8), insert the following language immediately following the paragraph beginning with the words ``1991 Amendment'': ``2016 Amendment: Changes to this paragraph reflect section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112- 81, 31 December 2011, which superseded the previous paragraph 45, ``Rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct,'' in its entirety and replaces paragraph 45 with ``Rape and sexual assault generally.'' In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 added paragraph 45b, ``Rape and sexual assault of a child,'' and paragraph 45c, ``Other sexual misconduct.'' '' Section 7. Appendix 23 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, is amended as follows: (a) Paragraph 3.b.(4), Article 79, Lesser included offenses, Specific lesser included offenses, is amended by deleting the paragraphs beginning with the words ``2012 Amendment'' and ending with ``(C.A.A.F. 2008).'' and inserting in their place: ``2016 Amendment: See analysis in paragraph 3.b.(1) above. Lesser included offenses (LIO) listings were removed from each punitive article in paragraphs 1-113 (except paragraphs 1 and 3), Part IV, and were moved to a new Appendix 12A. The LIO listings are determined based on the elements of the greater offense, but are not binding. Therefore, practitioners should use Appendix 12A only as a guide. To determine if an offense is lesser included, the elements test must be used. United States v. Jones, 68 M.J. 465, 470 (C.A.A.F. 2010). The offenses are not required to possess identical statutory language; rather, the court uses normal principles of statutory construction to determine the meaning of each element. See id. at 470-73; United States v. Oatney, 45 M.J. 185 (C.A.A.F. 1996); Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989). Article 134 offenses generally will not be lesser included offenses of enumerated offenses in Articles 80-133. See United States v. Girouard, 70 M.J. 5 (C.A.A.F. 2011); United States v. McMurrin, 70 M.J. 15 (C.A.A.F. 2011). Article 134 specifications must contain the ``terminal element.'' See paragraphs 60.b and 60.c.(6)(a) in Part IV. See also United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011); United States v. Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012); R.C.M. 307(c)(3).'' (b) Paragraph 43.a, Article 118, Murder, is amended by adding the following language: ``2012 Amendment: This statute was modified pursuant to section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112-81, 31 December 2011, to conform to renamed sexual assault offenses in Article 120 and Article 120b. The changes took effect on 28 June 2012.'' (c) Paragraph 45, Article 120, Rape and sexual assault generally, the first paragraph of the analysis beginning with the word ``2012'' and ending with the number ``28'' is amended to read as follows: ``2012 Amendment: This paragraph was substantially revised by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization [[Page 78588]] Act for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112-81, 31 December 2011. Amendments contained in this section took effect on 28 June 2012. Sec. 541(f), P.L. 112-81. On 28 June 2012, a modified paragraph 45, ``Rape and sexual assault generally,'' replaced the 2007 version of paragraph 45, ``Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.'' The analysis related to prior versions of Article 120 is located as follows: For offenses committed prior to 1 October 2007, see Appendix 27; for offenses committed during the period 1 October 2007 through 27 June 2012, see Appendix 28.'' (d) Paragraph 45, Article 120, Rape and sexual assault generally, is amended by deleting subparagraphs b, c, d, e, and f. (e) Paragraph 45, Article 120b, Rape and sexual assault of a child, is amended by inserting ``b'' after ``45''. (f) Paragraph 45b, Article 120b, Rape and sexual assault of a child, is amended by deleting subparagraphs b, c, d, e, and f. (g) Paragraph 45c, Article 120c, Other sexual misconduct, is amended by deleting subparagraphs b, c, d, e, and f. (h) Paragraph 51, Article 125, Sodomy, is amended by changing the title to ``Forcible Sodomy'' and adding the following language at the beginning: ``2016 Amendment: Paragraph 51 was amended pursuant to section 1707 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, P.L. 113-66, 26 December 2013. Additionally, all applicable references to sodomy throughout the Manual were changed to ``forcible sodomy'' to reflect the decriminalization of consensual sodomy under the UCMJ.'' (i) Paragraph 60.c.(6)(a) is amended to read as follows: ``2016 Amendment: In 2012 the Manual was amended to address the changes in practice resulting from the holding in United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011). In 2016, the President required that the terminal element be expressly alleged in every Article 134 specification. The President ended the historical practice of allowing the terminal element to be inferred from Article 134 specifications, see, e.g. United States v. Mayo, 12 M.J. 286 (C.M.A. 1982), and required the terminal element be expressly alleged to provide sufficient notice to the accused and for uniformity and consistency in practice. See Fosler, 70 M.J. at 227-28. In general, when drafting specifications, the Government must allege every element, either expressly or by necessary implication. See R.C.M. 307(c)(3). However, in Article 134 specifications, the accused must be given notice as to which clause or clauses he must defend against; therefore, the terminal element may not be inferred from a specification. Although a single terminal element is required, there are three theories of liability that would satisfy the terminal element: a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline (under clause 1); conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (under clause 2); or a crime or offense not capital (under clause 3). The three clauses are ``distinct and separate.'' Fosler, 70 M.J. at 230. A single theory may be alleged, or clauses 1 and 2 may be combined. While it is not prohibited to combine clauses 1, 2, and 3 in one specification, such a combination is not practical. When charging both clauses 1 and 2, practitioners are encouraged to use the word ``and'' to separate the theories in one specification, rather than using the word ``or'' to separate the theories. Practitioners may also allege two separate specifications. At findings, the Trial Counsel or Military Judge must make certain that the record is clear as to whether the trier of fact found that clause 1, clause 2, or both clauses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Using the word ``and'' to separate clauses 1 and 2 in the terminal element allows the trier of fact to except the unproven clause from the specification. This approach forces intellectual rigor in analyzing each clause as distinct and separate. Nothing in this analysis should be read to suggest that a specification connecting the two theories with the disjunctive ``or'' necessarily fails to give the accused reasonable notice of the charge against him. See United States v. Rauscher, 71 M.J. 225, 226 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 765 (1962)).'' (j) Paragraph 60.c.(6)(b) is amended by deleting the paragraph beginning with the words ``2012 Amendment'' and ending ``above.'', and inserting in its place: ``2016 Amendment: New discussion was added in 2012 to address United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011). In 2016, that discussion was removed after paragraph 60 was amended by Executive Order. See analysis under subparagraph c.(6)(a) above.'' (k) Paragraph 62.c.(2) is amended to read as follows: ``(2) When determining whether adulterous acts constitute the offense of adultery under Article 134, commanders should consider the listed factors. The offense of adultery is intended to prohibit extramarital sexual behavior that directly affects the discipline of the armed forces, respect for the chain of command, or maintenance of unit cohesion. The intent of this provision is to limit the crime of adultery to those situations where the negative impact to the unit is real rather than theorized. This provision should not be interpreted to criminalize sexual practices between two adults with full and mutual consent from each other, but rather, to punish the collateral negative effects of extramarital sexual activity when there exists a genuine nexus between that activity and the efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces. Cf. United States v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198, 204-08 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (despite constitutionally protected liberty interest in private sexual behavior between consenting adults, military may regulate sexual conduct to the extent it could affect military order and discipline). While each commander has discretion to dispose of offenses by members of the command, wholly private and consensual sexual conduct between adults is generally not punishable under this paragraph. The right to engage in such conduct, however, is tempered in a military context by the mission of the military, the need for cohesive teams, and the need for obedience to orders. Cases involving fraternization or other unprofessional relationships may be more appropriately charged under Article 92 or Article 134--Fraternization. Cases involving abuse of authority by officers may be more appropriately charged under Article 133. Rule for Courts-Martial 306(b) advises commanders to dispose of alleged offenses at the lowest appropriate level. As the R.C.M. 306(b) discussion states, many factors must be taken into consideration and balanced, including, to the extent practicable, the nature of the offense, any mitigating or extenuating circumstances, any recommendations made by subordinate commanders, the interests of justice, military exigencies, and the effect of the decision on the military member and the command. The goal should be a disposition that is warranted, appropriate, and fair. In the case of officers, also consult the explanation to paragraph 59 of Part IV in deciding how to dispose of an allegation of adultery.'' (l) Paragraph 90 is amended to read as follows: ``90. Article 134--(Indecent Conduct) Introduction. This offense is new to the Manual for Courts-Martial and was promulgated pursuant to Executive Order 13740 of 16 September 2016. It [[Page 78589]] includes offenses previously proscribed by ``Indecent acts with another,'' which was deleted pursuant to Executive Order 13447 of 1 October 2007, except that the presence of another person is not required. (m) Paragraph 97, Article 134 (Pandering and prostitution) is amended by adding the following language: ``2016 Amendment: Paragraph 97 was amended to broaden the definition of prostitution and pandering to include all sexual acts, not just sexual intercourse. This amendment included the removal of the language in paragraph 97.c suggesting that engaging in sodomy for money or compensation could be charged under paragraph 51 (Article 125-- Sodomy). Pursuant to section 1707 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, P.L. 113-66, 26 December 2013, consensual sodomy is no longer a crime under the UCMJ and Article 125 is not an appropriate charge for the consensual exchange of money for sodomy. The definition of prostitution for this offense differs from the definition of prostitution in Article 120c. Congress provided a broader definition of prostitution when criminalizing forcible pandering. Dated: November 3, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 2016-26947 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
![78576 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices
Federal Officer, via electronic mail, the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE applied earlier than the date of
preferred mode of submission, at the publication in the Federal Register.
address listed in the FOR FURTHER Office of the Secretary
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Written
DATES: These Supplementary Materials
comments or statements being [Docket ID: DOD–2016–OS–0110]
are effective as of November 8, 2016.
submitted in response to the agenda set FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
forth in this notice must be received by Manual for Courts-Martial; Publication Major Harlye S. Carlton, USMC, (703)
the Designated Federal Official at least of Supplementary Materials 963–9299 or harlye.carlton@usmc.mil.
seven business days prior to the meeting The JSC Web site is located at: http://
AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on
to be considered by the committee. The jsc.defense.gov.
Military Justice (JSC), Department of
Designated Federal Official will review
all timely submitted written comments Defense.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
or statements with the committee ACTION: Publication of Discussion and
Analysis (Supplementary Materials) Public Comments: The JSC solicited
Chairperson and ensure the comments
accompanying the Manual for Courts- public comments for these changes to
are provided to all members of the
Martial, United States (2012 ed.) (MCM). the MCM via the Federal Register on
committee before the meeting. Written
comments or statements received after October 23, 2012 (77 FR 64854–64887,
SUMMARY: The JSC hereby publishes Docket ID: DoD–2012–OS–0129), held a
this date may not be provided to the
committee until its next meeting. Supplementary Materials accompanying public meeting on December 11, 2012,
Pursuant to 41 CFR § 102–3.140d, the the MCM as amended by Executive and published the JSC response to
committee is not obligated to allow a Orders 13643, 13669, 13696, 13730, and public comments via the Federal
member of the public to speak or 13740. These changes have not been Register on March 5, 2013 (78 FR
otherwise address the committee during coordinated within the Department of 14271–14272, Docket ID: DoD–2012–
the meeting. However, the committee Defense under DoD Directive 5500.1, OS–0129).
Designated Federal Official and ‘‘Preparation, Processing and
Coordinating Legislation, Executive The amendments to the Discussion
Chairperson may choose to invite and Analysis of the MCM are as follows:
certain submitters to present their Orders, Proclamations, Views Letters
comments verbally during the open and Testimony,’’ June 15, 2007, and do
Annex
portion of this meeting or at a future not constitute the official position of the
meeting. The Designated Federal Department of Defense, the Military Section 1. Appendix 12 of the Manual
Officer, in consultation with the Departments, or any other Government for Courts-Martial, United States, is
committee Chairperson, may allot a agency. These Supplementary Materials amended as follows:
specific amount of time for submitters to have been approved by the JSC and the
General Counsel of the Department of (a) Article 120 is amended to read as
present their comments verbally. follows:
Defense, and shall be applied in
Brenda S. Bowen, conjunction with the rule with which ‘‘120 Rape and sexual assault generally
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. they are associated. The Discussions are
[FR Doc. 2016–26928 Filed 11–7–16; 8:45 am] effective insofar as the Rules they
BILLING CODE 5001–03–P supplement are effective, but may not be
Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture
Rape ........................................................................................... Mandatory DD 5 ....................... Life 4 ........................................ Total.
Sexual Assault ............................................................................ Mandatory DD 5 ....................... 30 yrs ...................................... Total.
Aggravated Sexual Contact ....................................................... DD, BCD ................................. 20 yrs ...................................... Total.
Abusive Sexual Contact ............................................................. DD, BCD ................................. 7 yrs ........................................ Total.’’
(b) Article 120b is inserted to read as
follows:
‘‘120b Rape and sexual assault of a
child
Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture
Rape of a Child .......................................................................... Mandatory DD 5 ....................... Life 4 ........................................ Total.
Sexual Assault of a Child ........................................................... Mandatory DD 5 ....................... 30 yrs ...................................... Total.
Sexual Abuse of a Child:
Cases Involving Sexual Contact ......................................... DD, BCD ................................. 20 yrs ...................................... Total.
Other Cases ........................................................................ DD, BCD ................................. 15 yrs ...................................... Total.’’
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
(c) Article 120c is inserted to read as ‘‘120c Other sexual misconduct
follows:
Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture
Indecent Viewing ........................................................................ DD, BCD ................................. 1 yr .......................................... Total.
Indecent Recording .................................................................... DD, BCD ................................. 5 yrs ........................................ Total.
Broadcasting or Distributing of an Indecent Recording ............. DD, BCD ................................. 7 yrs ........................................ Total.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Nov 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM 08NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_78792/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices 78577
Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture
Forcible Pandering ..................................................................... DD, BCD ................................. 12 yrs ...................................... Total.
Indecent Exposure ..................................................................... DD, BCD ................................. 1 yr .......................................... Total.’’
(d) The following Note is inserted offenses committed after 28 June 2012. ‘‘125 Forcible sodomy; bestiality
after Article 120c to read as follows: See Appendices 23, 27, and 28.]’’
‘‘[Note: The Article 120, 120b, and (e) Article 125 is amended to read as
120c maximum punishments apply to follows:
Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture
Forcible sodomy ......................................................................... Mandatory DD 5
....................... Life 4........................................ Total.
Bestiality ..................................................................................... DD, BCD ................................. 5 yrs ........................................ Total.’’
(f) Article 134 abusing public animal ‘‘134 Animal abuse
is amended to read as follows:
Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture
Abuse, neglect, or abandonment of an animal .......................... BCD ......................................... 1 yr .......................................... Total.
Abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a public animal ................. BCD ......................................... 2yrs .......................................... Total.
Sexual act with an animal or cases where the accused caused DD, BCD ................................. 5 yrs ........................................ Total.’’
the serious injury or death of the animal.
(g) Article 134 Assault with intent to robbery, sodomy, arson, or burglary is
commit voluntary manslaughter, amended to read as follows:
Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture
134 With intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, robbery, DD, BCD ................................. 10 yrs ...................................... Total.’’
forcible sodomy, arson, or burglary.
(h) Article 134 Indecent conduct is
inserted to read as follows:
Offense Discharge Confinement Forfeiture
134 Indecent conduct .............................................................. DD, BCD ................................. 5 yrs ........................................ Total.’’
(i) The Notes are amended by adding ‘‘APPENDIX 12A elements of the proposed lesser
note 5 after note 4. LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES included offense should be compared
‘‘ 5. A dishonorable discharge can be with the elements of the greater offense
reduced to a bad-conduct discharge by This chart was compiled for to determine if the elements of the lesser
the convening authority in accordance convenience purposes only and is not offense are derivative of the greater
the ultimate authority for specific lesser offense and vice versa. The ‘‘elements
with a pretrial agreement.’’
included offenses. Lesser offenses are test’’ is the proper method for
Section 2. Appendix 12A of the those which are necessarily included in determining lesser included offenses.
Manual for Courts-Martial, United the offense charged. See Article 79. See Appendix 23.
States, is inserted to read as follows: Depending on the factual circumstances Attempts to commit an offense may
in each case, the offenses listed below constitute a lesser included offense and
may be considered lesser included. The are not listed. See Article 80.
Article Offense Lesser included offense
77 .................. Principals ..................................................................................... See Part IV, Para. 1.
78 .................. Accessory after the fact .............................................................. See Part IV, Para. 2.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
79 .................. Conviction of lesser included offenses ....................................... See Part IV, Para. 3.
80 .................. Attempts ...................................................................................... See Part IV, Para. 4.
81 .................. Conspiracy .................................................................................. See Part IV, Para. 5.
82 .................. Solicitation.
83 .................. Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation.
84 .................. Effecting unlawful enlistment, appointment, or separation.
85 .................. Desertion ..................................................................................... Art. 86.
86 .................. Absence without leave.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Nov 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM 08NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_78792/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices 78585
‘‘In that llll, (personal ‘‘2016 Amendment: This National Defense Authorization Act for
jurisdiction data), did (at/on board subparagraph was amended and reflects Fiscal Year 2015, P.L. 113–291, 19
location), on or about ll 20ll, the removal of a note.’’ December 2014.’’
(commit: address each element), an (f) R.C.M. 307(c)(3)(G)(v), insert the (i) R.C.M. 906(b)(12), delete the
offense not capital, in violation of (name following language: paragraph beginning with the words the
or citation of statute).’’ ‘‘2016 Amendment: Subparagraph (v) ‘‘2012 Amendment,’’ and insert in its
In addition to alleging each element of was added to address lesser included place:
the federal statute, practitioners should offenses and refer practitioners to ‘‘2016 Amendment: This rule and
consider including, when appropriate Article 79 and new Appendix 12A. See related discussion is the focal point for
and necessary, words of criminality paragraph 3 in Part IV and Appendix addressing unreasonable multiplication
(e.g., wrongfully, knowingly, or 12A.’’ of charges. If a practitioner seeks to raise
willfully).’’ (g) R.C.M. 307(c)(4), after the a claim for multiplicity, that concept is
Section 6. Appendix 21 of the Manual paragraph beginning with the words addressed in R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B) and
for Courts-Martial, United States, is ‘‘2005 Amendment’’ delete the related discussion. This rule has been
amended as follows: paragraph beginning with the words the amended. The Court of Appeals for the
(a) R.C.M. 306, the last paragraph ‘‘2012 Amendment,’’ and insert in its Armed Forces has recognized that
beginning with ‘‘2016 Amendment,’’ is place: practitioners and the courts have
amended to read as follows: ‘‘2016 Amendment: The discussion routinely confused the concepts of
‘‘2016 Amendment: R.C.M. 306(e) section was added to R.C.M. 307(c)(4) to multiplicity and unreasonable
implements Section 534(b) of the clarify the ambiguity between the two multiplication of charges. See, e.g.,
National Defense Authorization Act for distinct concepts of multiplicity and United States v. Campbell, 71 M.J. 19,
Fiscal Year 2015, P.L. 113–291, 19 unreasonable multiplication of charges. 23 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (‘‘the terms
December 2014.’’ For analysis related to multiplicity, see multiplicity, multiplicity for sentencing,
(b) R.C.M. 307(c)(3), after the R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B) in this Appendix. and unreasonable multiplication of
paragraph beginning with the words, For analysis related to unreasonable charges in military practice are
‘‘2012 Amendment,’’ and prior to the multiplication of charges, see R.C.M. sometimes used interchangeably as well
line beginning with the words, ‘‘The 906(b)(12) in this Appendix. as with uncertain definition’’); United
sources of the lettered subsection’’ add Nothing in the rule or the discussion States v. Baker, 14 M.J. 361, 372 (C.M.A.
the following: section should be construed to imply 1983) (Cook, J. dissenting) (‘‘[t]hat
‘‘2016 Amendment: The two notes that it would be overreaching for a multiplicity for sentencing is a mess in
added in 2012 are removed. The notes prosecutor to bring several charges the military justice system is a
were originally added to address the against an accused for what essentially proposition with which I believe few
requirement to expressly state the amounts to one transaction if there is a people familiar with our system would
terminal element in specifications under valid legal reason to do so. For example, take issue’’).
Article 134 and to address lesser prosecutors may charge two offenses for Multiplicity and unreasonable
included offenses. See United States v. exigencies of proof, which is a long multiplication of charges are two
Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012); accepted practice in military law. See, distinct concepts. Unreasonable
United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 e.g., United States v. Morton, 69 M.J. 12 multiplication of charges as applied to
(C.A.A.F. 2011); United States v. Jones, (C.A.A.F. 2010). The discussion section findings and sentence is a limitation on
68 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2010). In 2016, the emphasizes that a prosecutor is not the prosecution’s discretion to charge
Manual was amended to require the overreaching or abusing his or her separate offenses. Unreasonable
terminal element be expressed in Article discretion merely because he or she multiplication of charges does not have
134 specifications and to alter the charges what is essentially one act a foundation in the Constitution but is
definition of lesser included offenses under several different charges or instead based on the concept of
under Article 79. See paragraphs 3 and specifications. reasonableness and is a prohibition
60.c.(6) in Part IV of this Manual.’’ The language in the discussion against prosecutorial overreaching. In
(c) R.C.M. 307(c)(3)(A), after the section of the 2012 edition of the contrast, multiplicity is based on the
paragraph beginning with the words Manual referring to United States v. Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth
‘‘Sample specifications’’ delete the Campbell, 71 M.J. 19 (C.A.A.F. 2012), Amendment and prevents an accused
paragraph beginning with the words the was removed because it is no longer from being twice punished for one
‘‘2012 Amendment.’’ necessary, as the rules themselves have offense if it is contrary to the intent of
(d) R.C.M. 307(c)(3)(G), after the been edited to remove any reference to Congress. A charge may be found not to
paragraph beginning with the words ‘‘multiplicious for sentencing.’’ The be multiplicious but at the same time it
‘‘Description of offense.’’ delete the example was removed from the may be dismissed because of
paragraph beginning with the words the discussion section because it overly unreasonable multiplication. See United
‘‘2012 Amendment,’’ and insert in its generalized the concept of unreasonable States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334, 337–38
place: multiplication of charges.’’ (C.A.A.F. 2001).
‘‘2016 Amendment: The note added (h) R.C.M. 701(e), after the paragraph Use of the term ‘‘multiplicity (or
in 2012 is removed. The note was beginning with the words, ‘‘1986 multiplicious) for sentencing’’ is
originally added to address the Amendment,’’ and immediately before inappropriate. If a charge is
requirement to expressly state the subparagraph (f), insert the following multiplicious, meaning that it violates
terminal element in Article 134 language: the Constitutional prohibition against
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
specifications. See United States v. ‘‘2016 Amendment: This rule Double Jeopardy, it necessarily results
Ballan, 71 M.J. 28 (C.A.A.F. 2012); implements Article 46(b), enacted by in dismissal of the multiplied offenses,
United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 section 1704 of the National Defense therefore obviating any issue on
(C.A.A.F. 2011).’’ Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, sentencing with respect to that charge.
(e) R.C.M. 307(c)(3)(G)(i), insert the P.L. 113–66, 26 December 2013, as Campbell, 71 M.J. at 23. A charge
following language as a new paragraph amended by section 531(b) of the Carl should not be found multiplicious for
after the existing paragraph: Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon sentencing but not for findings. Thus,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Nov 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM 08NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_78792/page/10.svg)
![78586 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices
the more appropriate term for the Therefore, it is more appropriate to ‘‘single impulse’’ or ‘‘fairly embraced’’
military judge’s discretionary review of address the issue here. tests is outdated and should be avoided.
the charges at sentencing is For more information on multiplicity Two offenses that arise from the same
‘‘unreasonable multiplication of charges and how it relates to unreasonable transaction may not be multiplicious,
as applied to sentence.’’ Id. at 24. The multiplication of charges, see Michael J. even if each does not require proof of an
rule was changed to remove Breslin & LeEllen Coacher, Multiplicity element not required to prove the other,
‘‘multiplicity for sentencing’’ from the and Unreasonable Multiplication of if the intent of Congress was that an
Manual, eliminating confusion and Charges: A Guide to the Perplexed, 45 accused could be convicted of and
misuse. A.F. L. Rev. 99 (1998); Christopher S. punished for both offenses arising out of
Subparagraphs (i) and (ii) were added Morgan, Multiplicity: Reconciling the the same act. The Blockburger/Teters
to the rule. They clarify the distinction Manual for Courts-Martial, 63 A.F. L. analysis applies only when Congress
between unreasonable multiplication of Rev. 23 (2009); Gary E. Felicetti, did not intend that the offenses be
charges as applied to findings and to Surviving the Multiplicty/LIO Family treated as separate. If Congress intended
sentence. Although these concepts have Vortex, Army Law., Feb. 2011, at 46. to subject an accused to multiple
existed for years (see Michael J. Breslin The language in the discussion punishments for the same transaction,
& LeEllen Coacher, Multiplicity and section of the 2012 edition of the and that intent is clear, the Blockburger/
Unreasonable Multiplication of Charges: Manual referring to the Campbell Teters elements comparison is
A Guide to the Perplexed, 45 A.F. L. decision was removed because it is no unnecessary. See, e.g., Missouri v.
Rev. 99 (1998) for a history of the longer necessary, as the rules Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368–69 (1983)
terms), they were not defined in themselves have been edited to remove (‘‘[S]imply because two criminal
previous editions of the Manual. The any reference to ‘‘multiplicious for statutes may be construed to proscribe
definitions were adopted from Quiroz, sentencing’’ and additional discussion the same conduct under the Blockburger
Campbell, and recommendations from sections were added to eliminate any test does not mean that the Double
Christopher S. Morgan, Multiplicity: confusion with the terms.’’ Jeopardy Clause precludes the
Reconciling the Manual for Courts- (j) R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B), insert the
imposition, in a single trial, of
Martial, 63 A.F. L. Rev. 23 (2009). It is following language as a new paragraph
cumulative punishments pursuant to
possible that two offenses are not after the existing paragraph:
‘‘2016 Amendment: This rule and those statutes. . . . Where . . . a
unreasonably multiplied for findings legislature specifically authorizes
but are so for sentencing; these related discussion is the focal point for
addressing claims of multiplicity. If a cumulative punishment under two
additions explain how this can be so. statutes, regardless of whether those two
See, e.g., Campbell, 71 M.J. at 25 practitioner seeks to raise a claim for
unreasonable multiplication of charges, statutes proscribe the ‘same’ conduct
(military judge did not abuse his under Blockburger, a court’s task of
discretion by finding that there was not that concept is addressed in R.C.M.
906(b)(12) and related discussion. The statutory construction is at an end and
an unreasonable multiplication of the prosecutor may seek and the trial
charges as applied to findings but that heading of this rule, which was added
in 2016, signifies that this rule deals court or jury may impose cumulative
there was an unreasonable
exclusively with multiplicity, and not punishment under such statutes in a
multiplication of charges as applied to
unreasonable multiplication of charges. single trial.’’).
sentence).
The discussion sections were added The discussion section of this rule was The language in the discussion
to address concerns that CAAF voiced amended because the committee section of the 2012 edition of the
in dicta in Campbell. In previous believed that a more thorough definition Manual referring to the Campbell
editions of the Manual, military judges of multiplicity was appropriate in light decision was removed because it is no
often used the discussion section in of CAAF’s suggestion in United States v. longer necessary, as the Rules
R.C.M. 1003(c)(1) to determine when Campbell, 71 M.J. 19, 23 (C.A.A.F. themselves have been edited to remove
relief was warranted for unreasonable 2012), that the concepts of multiplicity any reference to ‘‘multiplicious for
multiplication of charges as applied to and unreasonable multiplication of sentencing’’ and additional discussion
sentence. The Campbell court stated in charges are often confounded. sections were added to eliminate any
a footnote: ‘‘It is our view that after The discussion of multiplicity is confusion with the terms.’’
Quiroz, the language in the Discussion derived from the Supreme Court’s (k) R.C.M. 916(b), insert the following
to R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(C) regarding ‘a holding in Blockburger v. United States, language immediately following the
single impulse or intent,’ is dated and 284 U.S. 299 (1932), and CMA’s holding paragraph beginning with the words
too restrictive. The better approach is to in United States v. Teters, 37 M.J. 370 ‘‘2007 Amendment’’:
allow the military judge, in his or her (C.M.A. 1993). The Court in Blockburger ‘‘2016 Amendment: Changes to this
discretion, to merge the offense for wrote: ‘‘[W]here the same act or paragraph are based on section 541 of
sentencing purposes by considering the transaction constitutes a violation of the National Defense Authorization Act
Quiroz factors and any other relevant two distinct statutory provisions, the for Fiscal Year 2012, P.L. 112–81, 31
factor. . . .’’ Campbell, 71 M.J. at 24 test to be applied to determine whether December 2011, which superseded the
n.9. The Discussion was changed to there are two offenses or only one, is previous paragraph 45, ‘‘Rape, sexual
address the Quiroz factors and remove whether each provision requires proof assault and other sexual misconduct,’’
any reference to the ‘‘single impulse or of a fact which the other does not.’’ in its entirety and replaces paragraph 45
intent’’ test, as suggested by CAAF. The Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304. Military with ‘‘Rape and sexual assault
committee also decided to move the courts departed from the Blockburger generally.’’ In addition, the National
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Discussion section from R.C.M. analysis; however, the CMA’s decision Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
1003(b)(8)(C) to this rule because R.C.M. in Teters clearly re-aligned the military Year 2012 added paragraph 45b, ‘‘Rape
1003 deals exclusively with sentencing courts with the federal courts, and and sexual assault of a child,’’ and
and a motion for appropriate relief due multiplicity is now determined in the paragraph 45c, ‘‘Other sexual
to unreasonable multiplication of military courts by the Blockburger/ misconduct.’’
charges can be raised as an issue for Teters analysis outlined in the (l) R.C.M. 916(j), insert the following
findings or for sentence under this Rule. discussion section. Any reference to the language immediately following the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Nov 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM 08NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_78792/page/11.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices 78589
includes offenses previously proscribed submitted electronically through the Abstract: The second round of data
by ‘‘Indecent acts with another,’’ which Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// collection for the Implementation of
was deleted pursuant to Executive www.regulations.gov by selecting the Title I/II–A Program Initiatives study
Order 13447 of 1 October 2007, except Docket ID number or via postal mail, will continue to examine the
that the presence of another person is commercial delivery, or hand delivery. implementation of policies promoted
not required. (m) Paragraph 97, Article Please note that comments submitted by through the Elementary and Secondary
134 (Pandering and prostitution) is fax or email and those submitted after Education Act (ESEA) at the state and
amended by adding the following the comment period will not be district levels, in four core areas: School
language: accepted. Written requests for accountability and support for low-
‘‘2016 Amendment: Paragraph 97 was information or comments submitted by performing schools, teacher and
amended to broaden the definition of postal mail or delivery should be principal evaluation, state content
prostitution and pandering to include addressed to the Director of the standards, and assessments. The first
all sexual acts, not just sexual Information Collection Clearance round of data collection for this study
intercourse. This amendment included Division, U.S. Department of Education, was conducted in Spring and Summer
the removal of the language in 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2014.
paragraph 97.c suggesting that engaging 2E–343, Washington, DC 20202–4537. The purpose of this follow-up data
in sodomy for money or compensation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
collection is to provide policy makers
could be charged under paragraph 51 specific questions related to collection with detailed information on the core
(Article 125—Sodomy). Pursuant to activities, please contact Erica Johnson, policies promoted by Title I and Title
section 1707 of the National Defense 202–245–7676. II–A being implemented at the state and
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, district levels, and the resources and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
P.L. 113–66, 26 December 2013, supports they provide to schools and
Department of Education (ED), in teachers. The timing of the data
consensual sodomy is no longer a crime accordance with the Paperwork
under the UCMJ and Article 125 is not collection is critical to provide
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. information prior to the full
an appropriate charge for the consensual 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general
exchange of money for sodomy. The implementation of the Every Student
public and Federal agencies with an Succeeds Act (ESSA) in the 2017–18
definition of prostitution for this offense opportunity to comment on proposed,
differs from the definition of school year. Although other research
revised, and continuing collections of studies cover similar topics on recent
prostitution in Article 120c. Congress information. This helps the Department
provided a broader definition of federal education policy, the breadth of
assess the impact of its information research questions and the depth of
prostitution when criminalizing forcible collection requirements and minimize
pandering. responses from all states and a
the public’s reporting burden. It also nationally representative sample of 570
Dated: November 3, 2016. helps the public understand the school districts sets the Title I/II study
Aaron Siegel, Department’s information collection apart from other studies.
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison requirements and provide the requested This study will rely on information
Officer, Department of Defense. data in the desired format. ED is collected from existing sources, for
[FR Doc. 2016–26947 Filed 11–7–16; 8:45 am] soliciting comments on the proposed which there are no respondents or
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P information collection request (ICR) that burden, and on a set of revised state and
is described below. The Department of district surveys, based on the 2014 data
Education is especially interested in collection, in order to address the
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION public comment addressing the study’s research questions. Extant data
following issues: (1) Is this collection sources include (a) the National
[Docket No.: ED–2016–ICCD–0125] necessary to the proper functions of the Assessment of Educational Progress
Department; (2) will this information be (NAEP) and (b) EDFacts data.
Agency Information Collection processed and used in a timely manner; The revised surveys of states and
Activities; Comment Request; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; school districts will begin in April 2017.
Implementation of Title I/II–A Program (4) how might the Department enhance All respondents will have the
Initiatives the quality, utility, and clarity of the opportunity to complete an electronic
AGENCY: Institute of Education Sciences information to be collected; and (5) how (e.g., web-based) survey (or paper
(IES), Department of Education (ED). might the Department minimize the survey, if preferred). The survey
burden of this collection on the respondents are described briefly below:
ACTION: Notice.
respondents, including through the use State Surveys: The state survey will
SUMMARY: In accordance with the of information technology. Please note be sent to the chief state school officer
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is that written comments received in in each of the 50 states and the District
proposing a reinstatement of a response to this notice will be of Columbia. The state surveys will be
previously approved information considered public records. administered using an electronic
collection. Title of Collection: Implementation of instrument divided into modules
Title I/II–A Program Initiatives. corresponding to the four core areas.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to OMB Control Number: 1850–0902. School District Surveys. The school
submit comments on or before January Type of Review: A reinstatement of a district survey will be sent to school
9, 2017. previously approved information superintendents from the same
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES: To access and review all the collection. nationally representative sample of 570
documents related to the information Respondents/Affected Public: State, school districts that participated in the
collection listed in this notice, please Local, or Tribal Governments. 2014 survey. The district survey will be
use http://www.regulations.gov by Total Estimated Number of Annual web-based and modularized,
searching the Docket ID number ED– Responses: 621. corresponding to the four core areas, to
2016–ICCD–0125. Comments submitted Total Estimated Number of Annual allow for completion by one or multiple
in response to this notice should be Burden Hours: 672. respondents.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Nov 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM 08NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_78792/page/14.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 08:23:39
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 08:23:39
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Publication of Discussion and Analysis (Supplementary Materials) accompanying the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 ed.) (MCM). | |
| Dates | These Supplementary Materials are effective as of November 8, 2016. | |
| Contact | Major Harlye S. Carlton, USMC, (703) 963-9299 or [email protected] The JSC Web site is located at: http://jsc.defense.gov. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 78576 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR