UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Bobby D. SEAY II, Sergeant
U.S. Army, Appellant
No. 03-0246/AR
Crim. App. No. 9900779
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued April 20, 2004
Decided June 30, 2004
CRAWFORD, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which GIERKE and EFFRON, JJ, joined. ERDMANN, J. filed a
separate opinion, dissenting in part, concurring in part, and
concurring in the result in which BAKER, J., joined.
Counsel
For Appellant: Captain Fansu Ku (argued); Colonel Robert D.
Teetsel and Lieutenant Colonel Mark Tellitocci (on brief);
Lieutenant Colonel E. Allen Chandler, Jr.
For Appellee: Captain Michael D. Wallace (argued); Colonel
Lauren B. Leeker, Lieutenant Colonel Margaret B. Baines, and
Lieutenant Colonel Virginia G. Beakes (on brief).
Military Judges: R. J. Hough and P. J. Parrish.
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
Chief Judge CRAWFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of
conspiracy, premeditated murder, larceny, and kidnapping, in
violation of Articles 81, 118, 121, and 1341. The convening
authority approved the sentence of confinement for life, a
dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and reduction to the
lowest enlisted grade. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed the findings and sentence in an unpublished opinion.
This Court subsequently granted review of the following issues:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION
IN NOT SUPPRESSING APPELLANT’S PRETRIAL
STATEMENTS TO ARMY INVESTIGATORS.
II. IF APPELLANT’S PRETRIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE
BEEN SUPPRESSED (ISSUE I), WHETHER THE REMAINING
EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
FINDINGS OF GUILTY TO ALL CHARGES AND
SPECIFICATIONS.
III. WHETHER PORTIONS OF APPELLANT’S STATEMENTS TO
ARMY INVESTIGATORS WERE UNCORROBORATED, AND, IF
SO, WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRONEOUSLY
PERMITTED THE PANEL MEMBERS TO CONSIDER THE
PERTINENT PORTIONS OF APPELLANT’S STATEMENTS
REGARDING THE CHARGE OF LARCENY.
IV. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILTY TO THE CHARGE THAT
APPELLANT STOLE PFC CHAFIN’S WALLET.
V. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS LEGALLY
SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING TO THE CHARGE
THAT APPELLANT KIDNAPPED PFC CHAFIN.
1
Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 10 U.S.C.
§§ 881, 918, 921, and 934 (1994).
2
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the findings and
sentence.
FACTS
On the evening of August 29, 1997, Appellant, PFC Jason
Chafin, and Sergeant Darrell Shelton went to Appellant’s
apartment near Colorado Springs, Colorado, after a fight
occurred in the local barracks between Chafin and another man.
After about 30 minutes – during which Chafin passed out from
drinking, and then reawakened – the three left Appellant’s
apartment in Appellant’s truck. Shelton drove the truck, with
Chafin seated up front in the passenger seat and Appellant
seated behind Chafin armed with a length of cord.
While driving, Shelton directed Appellant to wrap the cord
around Chafin’s neck and attempt to strangle him. Appellant
complied, but was unsuccessful in strangling Chafin, who jumped
out of the truck and fled. Shelton ran after Chafin, caught
him, and pinned him to the ground. Once Appellant reached them,
Shelton handed Appellant the Gerber knife Appellant kept in his
truck, and instructed Appellant to stab Chafin. According to
Appellant, Chafin asked him, “What have I ever done to you, Bo?”
and Appellant whispered back, “Ask the Lord for forgiveness.”
Appellant stabbed Chafin in the neck and ribs, and then passed
the knife to Shelton, who stabbed Chafin a number of times.
3
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
Appellant and Shelton fled the scene, leaving Chafin’s body
in a nearby field. They returned to the scene several days
later to take Chafin’s wallet and its contents. Chafin’s
skeletal remains were discovered by hunters four months later.
Upon watching the local media coverage of Chafin’s murder,
Appellant’s wife, Wendy, realized that on the night of the
murder, Chafin was in her apartment in the company of her
husband and Shelton. With this recollection, Wendy became
suspicious of her husband’s potential involvement in Chafin’s
murder. Acting on her suspicions, Wendy contacted Detective
Derek Graham of the Colorado Springs Police Department on
January 6, 1999.
Wendy told Graham that during the 1997 Labor Day weekend,
there was a young man in her apartment whom she had not seen
before and whom she subsequently realized was Chafin. She
stated that Chafin was very drunk, and that Appellant and
Shelton were very rude to him and began kicking him. After 20
to 30 minutes, Appellant, Shelton, and Chafin left the
apartment. Appellant returned to the apartment several hours
later, at which time Wendy overheard Shelton say something to
the effect, “I can’t believe you did that.”
Over the next several months, she became suspicious because
of various events. She overheard Appellant say to Shelton, “No,
4
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
there hasn’t been anything on the news about it. There’s
nothing in the paper about it.”
Wendy also described a telephone call between Appellant and
his parents, during which she overheard Appellant stating that
“he had done something very bad that was possibly going to get
him the death penalty.” Wendy further noted to Graham that
while she and Appellant watched a movie in which two detectives
treated a suspect rudely, Appellant said to her, “You know if
someone ever treated me like that, I would kill them.” Wendy
responded to the effect, “Well you know you can’t do that,” to
which he replied, “Well, I already have gotten away with it.”
Finally, Wendy told Graham that Appellant on several
occasions asked her to lie to authorities if ever she were
questioned, by saying that Chafin was not in their home on the
night of the murder. He told her: “Do you remember that night
that [Shelton] and I came home? It was just the two of us, you
remember that?” Appellant also told Wendy that if the police
were to ask about his knife, she should tell them he lost it.
A. First Questioning of Appellant
After speaking with Wendy Seay, Detective Graham went to
Appellant’s residence. He told Appellant he was investigating
the murder of Jason Chafin and asked if Appellant would “be
willing to come to the police operation center for an
interview.” Appellant agreed, and because Appellant’s car was
5
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
out of commission, the police gave him a ride to the police
station. Upon Appellant’s arrival at the station, the police
informed him of his rights, which Appellant waived. When Graham
indicated to Appellant that Shelton had been implicated in
Chafin’s murder, Appellant invoked his right to silence. Graham
accordingly terminated the interview and drove Appellant home.
With Appellant’s permission, the police videotaped and
audiotaped the interview.
B. Second Questioning of Appellant
After Detective Graham returned to his office, he decided
to have Wendy make recorded “pretext phone calls” to Appellant,
in the hopes of obtaining a confession. As a courtesy, Graham
called Special Agent Chris Barone of the Army Criminal
Investigations Command (CID) to inform him of Wendy’s
implication of Appellant and the planned pretextual calls.
Graham invited both Barone and CID Special Agent Martinez to
observe the calls. Although Graham set the ground rules for the
pretextual phone calls, Barone and Martinez offered some
suggestions, which Graham accepted or rejected at his
discretion.
Pursuant to this plan, Wendy used a phone at the Colorado
Springs Police Department office to call Appellant three times
at his apartment, over the course of three hours. Despite
Wendy’s persistent inquiries, Appellant did not confess to the
6
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
murder. Instead, Appellant stated that he wanted to talk to
Wendy face to face and during the telephone conversations, he
made the following statements to her about obtaining a lawyer:
You know what – you think I need to get a lawyer.
Well, why can’t I just get a lawyer and not answer no more
questions?
Why don’t I just get a lawyer and not answer any more
questions?
I think I need to get a lawyer, Wendy.
[B]ut for my safety and your safety getting a lawyer might
be the best thing to do right now and cooperate with the
police through a lawyer and not one on one.
Can you please wait . . . [s]o I can get a lawyer.
I think I need to get a lawyer and you can ask if you can
go home and tell them.
Well, everything that’s going on tonight. That’s why I
need a lawyer.
Can you tell them that things are this serious and I might
need to get a lawyer?
I just ask that you tell the police that . . . [you’ve]
been trying to talk to [your] husband. It seems that he
should get a lawyer.
Can you please [tell the police] . . . that [your husband]
thinks he needs a lawyer.
Appellant asked Wendy to call him back after the first call
ended. After the last call, Wendy was videotaped to recount
what occurred during the conversations. Both local and military
authorities agreed at that point that the CID should take over
the investigation entirely, which it did.
7
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
C. Third Questioning of Appellant
Concerned for Wendy’s safety, the CID suggested she meet
with Appellant in the CID office rather than at her home. Wendy
called Appellant from the CID office, and he agreed to meet her
there. Appellant arrived approximately 20 minutes later, at
around midnight on January 7, 1999. CID agents frisked
Appellant for weapons, and secured his keys and military
identification. One agent then led Appellant to the room where
Wendy was waiting, which was monitored by an internal video
camera and microphone. Appellant was told that his conversation
would be recorded. Agent Martinez decided to terminate the
conversation when he heard Wendy ask the potentially
incriminating question of whether Shelton had planned the
murder.
After the conversation ended, Martinez advised Appellant
that his cooperation would be appreciated and told him “that
anything he said previous to that, we weren’t going to use.”
Appellant agreed to cooperate and was advised by Agent Barone of
his rights under Article 31(b)2, which Appellant waived. The
agents asked Appellant to tell them what happened, and Appellant
gave a detailed narrative of the murder. Appellant thereafter
reviewed his statement, initialed each page, and swore to its
accuracy. Later, Barone asked Appellant to provide a second
2
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 831(b) (1994).
8
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
sworn statement of confession, as well as a videotaped statement
describing the murder. After again waiving his Article 31(b)
rights, Appellant gave the requested statements.
DISCUSSION
Issue I. Admissibility of Appellant’s Confession
The Supreme Court has held that a subsequent administration
of rights warnings may remove the taint when a suspect has
already given an unwarned but uncoerced statement. Appellant
invoked his right to remain silent before returning to his home
following a warned non-custodial interrogation by civilian
police. During several pretextual and unwarned telephone calls
from his spouse (acting at the request of civilian and military
law enforcement officers engaged in a joint investigation),
Appellant then made several references as to whether he should
get a lawyer. Appellant subsequently presented himself to
military authorities, waived his rights after receiving a
cleansing warning, and confessed to Chafin’s murder. The
question before us is whether Appellant’s confession is
admissible. We conclude that under the facts of this case,
Appellant’s confession was properly admitted into evidence.
“A military judge’s decision to admit or exclude evidence
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”3 “A military judge
abuses his discretion when his findings of fact are clearly
3
United States v. McCollum, 58 M.J. 323, 335 (C.A.A.F. 2003).
9
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
erroneous, when he is incorrect about the applicable law, or
when he improperly applies the law.”4
The Fifth Amendment in pertinent part guarantees that no
suspect “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to encompass two
distinct rights: the right to silence and the right to counsel
specifically during pretrial questioning.5 The privilege against
self-incrimination is further protected by Articles 27 and 316
and Military Rules of Evidence [hereinafter M.R.E.] 305(e) and
305(f).
Given the inherently compelling pressures of custodial
police interrogation, the Court enunciated the requirement, in
pertinent part, that “if a person in custody is to be subjected
to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and
unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent,”7 and
“has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer
with him during interrogation.”8 Even after Miranda warnings are
4
United States v. Roberts, 59 M.J. 323, 326 (C.A.A.F. 2004).
5
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 457 (1994); Edwards v.
Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966). The Fifth Amendment right to counsel applies to
pretrial interrogation. The Sixth Amendment provides criminal
accused the right to counsel during criminal proceedings.
United States v. Scott, 51 M.J. 326, 329 (C.A.A.F. 1999).
6
UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 827 and 831 (1994).
7
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 468.
8
Id. at 471.
10
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
given and waived, a suspect may change his mind during
questioning and assert these rights. The Supreme Court in
Miranda twice emphasized that if the suspect invokes the right
to remain silent or the right to speak to a lawyer, “the police
may not question him.”9
Addressing the concern that the warning requirements would
interfere with lawful police investigations, the Supreme Court
cited the rights warnings required under Article 31(b) since the
adoption of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 1951.10
Under Article 31(b):
No person subject to this chapter may
interrogate, or request any statement from an accused
or person suspected of an offense without first
informing him of the nature of the accusation and
advising him that he does not have to make any
statement regarding the offense of which he is accused
or suspected and that any statement made by him may be
used as evidence against him in a trial by court-
martial.
In United States v. Tempia,11 the military explicitly adopted
the Miranda warning requirements.
Amplifying Miranda as to a suspect’s right to silence, the
Supreme Court in Michigan v. Mosley,12 stated:
We therefore conclude that the admissibility of
statements obtained after the person in custody has
decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on
9
Id. at 444-45, 474.
10
Miranda, 384 U.S. at 489.
11
16 C.M.A. 629, 37 C.M.R. 249 (1967).
12
423 U.S. 96, 100 (1975).
11
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
whether his “right to cut off questioning” was
“scrupulously honored.”13
As to a suspect’s right to counsel in a Miranda context, the
Court in Edwards opined:
[W]hen an accused has invoked his right to have
counsel present during custodial interrogation, a
valid waiver of that right cannot be established by
showing only that he responded to further police-
initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been
advised of his rights. We further hold that an
accused . . . having expressed his desire to deal with
the police only through counsel, is not subject to
further interrogation by the authorities until counsel
has been made available to him, unless the accused
himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or
conversations with the police.14
While Mosley protects the right to remain silent, Edwards
protects the right to counsel. The “scrupulously honored” test
in Mosley differs from Edwards because under Edwards the accused
must initiate further communications or exchanges with police.
Both Mosley and Edwards were adopted in M.R.E. 305(e) and (f).
Appellant’s numerous references to counsel did not affect
Appellant’s confession because Appellant did not make an
unambiguous request for counsel.15 Appellant’s references to
counsel did not occur during the custodial interrogation.16
13
See also M.R.E. 305(f)(1).
14
Id. at 485. See also M.R.E. 305(e)(1) and (f)(2).
15
See Davis.
16
United States v. Schroeder, 39 M.J. 471, 474 (C.M.A.
1994)(“[A]ppellant’s request was too little and too early to
qualify as an invocation of Miranda under applicable Supreme
Court precedent.”). See generally People v. Villalobos, 737
N.E.2d 639, 642-46 (Ill. 2000)(canvassing Federal and State
12
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
We hold that even assuming Appellant’s Fifth Amendment
rights, Article 31(b), and the Military Rules of Evidence were
violated by the authorities’ continued interrogation of
Appellant despite his invocation of the right to silence during
the first questioning, the failure to provide Appellant
appropriate rights warnings during the pretextual phone calls,
and the failure to terminate the pretextual phone calls,
Appellant’s eventual confession was untainted. The Supreme
Court has recognized that
[a] subsequent administration of [rights] warnings to
a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned
statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the
conditions that precluded admission of the earlier
statement. In such circumstances, the finder of fact
may reasonably conclude that the suspect made a
rational and intelligent choice whether to waive or
invoke his rights.17
Accordingly, in United States v. Marquardt18 this Court held that
subsequent rights warnings may effect a “purging of the taint”
from prior unwarned statements.19
rulings concerning whether a suspect can successfully invoke the
Miranda right to counsel before a custodial interrogation has
begun and concluding that “one cannot anticipatorily invoke the
right to counsel prior to custodial interrogation”).
17
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 314 (1985).
18
39 M.J. 239 (C.M.A. 1994).
19
Id. at 241. See also United States v. Vaughters, 44 M.J. 377,
378 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (custodial interrogation may be reinitiated
without counsel being present where a suspect is provided a
meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel, and subsequently
waives his right to counsel); United States v. Wimberley, 16
U.S.C.M.A. 3, 9, 36 C.M.R. 159, 165 (1966) (after tainted first
statement, passage of time, fact that a different agent took
13
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
Appellant’s confession did not derive from either the
initial interview by Detective Graham, or the pretextual phone
calls which followed. In fact, no statements from Appellant’s
first or second questioning were admitted into evidence at
trial. Rather, Appellant confessed to Chafin’s murder on a
third occasion, after having voluntarily driven to the CID
office and met with his wife. Immediately prior to Appellant’s
confession on this occasion, Mrs. Seay was removed from the room
and a CID agent administered new rights warnings, as well as a
“cleansing warning” advising Appellant that the CID would not
use against Appellant anything Appellant had previously said.
After receiving these warnings, Appellant waived his rights, and
only then gave his voluntary confession.
In short, immediately prior to Appellant’s confession,
“[h]e was thus reminded again that he could remain silent and
could consult with a lawyer, and was carefully given a full and
fair opportunity to exercise these options.”20 Appellant waived
those rights anew, and in so doing created a clean slate for his
confession.
Because Appellant’s confession was untainted by prior
events, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in
second statement, and new Article 31 rights advisement before
second statement erases taint).
20
Mosley, 423 U.S. at 104-05.
14
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
admitting the confession into evidence at trial. As a result of
this conclusion, Issue II becomes moot.
Issues III and IV. Appellant’s Conviction of Larceny of PFC
Chafin’s Wallet
Issues III and IV concern Appellant’s conviction of larceny
of PFC Chafin’s wallet, alleged in Charge IV. Appellant’s
written confession contained the following exchange as to the
wallet:
Q: What happened to CHAFIN’s wallet?
A: At the time CHAFIN was stabbed, it was in his
pocket. SHELTON and I went back to CHAFIN’s body
sometime after that night and SHELTON took the wallet.
SHELTON had found out there was money in the wallet
after the unit started saying he was missing, so he
wanted to go back for the money. We went back on some
night and tried to find the body by trial and error.
SHELTON wanted me to go out and look for the body and
I did not want to. I would go out into the field, lay
down, and then go back to the car. Finally, SHELTON
got out and went straight to the body. He came back
with CHAFIN’s wallet and got into the car. . . .
Q: What did SHELTON do with the wallet?
A: I saw him go through the wallet and take out some
money. I don’t remember how much but there was a lot.
He gave me some of the money but I don’t remember how
much it was. SHELTON through [sic] something out of
the window. I don’t remember was [sic] it was but it
may have been the wallet. . . .
Q: Where did SHELTON throw the wallet out of the car?
A: I don’t remember. It was somewhere before we got
back to town.
15
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
CID Special Agent Barone testified that a wallet was not found
among Chafin’s effects during a postmortem inventory.
Appellant first avers that the military judge improperly
admitted into evidence Appellant’s uncorroborated confession as
to the larceny charge. Appellant further contends that even if
his confession were admissible, the evidence of larceny of
Chafin’s wallet is insufficient, as the only evidence to support
Appellant’s statement that his accomplice, Shelton, took the
wallet was a CID investigator’s testimony that a wallet was not
found among PFC Chafin’s effects. We disagree on both accounts.
“An admission or a confession of the accused may be
considered as evidence against the accused on the question of
guilt or innocence only if independent evidence, either direct
or circumstantial, had been introduced that corroborates the
essential facts admitted to justify sufficiently an inference or
their truth.”21
The corroboration requirement for admission of a
confession at court-martial does not necessitate
independent evidence of all the elements of an offense
or even of the corpus delicti of the offense. Rather,
the corroborating evidence must raise only an
inference of truth as to the essential facts admitted.
Moreover, while the reliability of the essential facts
must be established, it need not be done beyond a
reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the
evidence.22
21
M.R.E. 304(g).
22
United States v. Cottrill, 45 M.J. 485, 489 (C.A.A.F. 1997)
(internal citations omitted).
16
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
Both M.R.E. 304(g) and Cottrill set forth a very low
standard. It is not necessary for the members to conclude that
Chafin carried a wallet. The issue is whether the facts justify
the inference as to the truth of the confession: Appellant and
the other person named in the confession were seen with the
victim shortly before he disappeared; the victim died as a
result of foul play; the victim’s body was found in a concealed
place; the post-mortem revealed no wallet; and no wallet was
ever found. For the purposes of corroborating a confession,
there is no requirement that the members conclude beyond a
reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the corroborating facts alone (i.e., without the
confession) establish that this victim, in fact, carried a
wallet at the time of death; rather, the rule simply requires a
presence of facts that enable the members to infer the truth of
the essential facts in the confession. When a person confesses
to participation in the larceny of a wallet, it is reasonable to
infer the truth of the confession from the fact that the victim
named in the confession knew the Appellant, died as a result of
foul play, was found in a concealed place, and did not have a
wallet at the time or thereafter. We therefore hold that these
reasonable inferences adequately corroborated Appellant’s
confession, and we therefore find no merit in Issue III.
Regarding Issue IV, we also hold that the properly corroborated
17
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
confession adequately established the essential elements of
larceny beyond a reasonable doubt to support Appellant’s larceny
conviction.
Issue V. Appellant’s Conviction of Kidnapping PFC Chafin
Finally, Issue V questions the legal sufficiency of the
evidence supporting Appellant’s kidnapping conviction. For the
following reasons, we hold that the evidence was legally
sufficient to support Appellant’s kidnapping conviction.
As noted above, “[t]he test for legal sufficiency of the
evidence is whether, ‘after viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.’”23 This Court reviews questions of legal
sufficiency de novo.24
The Uniform Code of Military Justice punishes kidnapping as
an offense to the prejudice of good order and discipline or of a
nature to bring discredit to the armed forces, under Article
134. The Manual for Courts-Martial [MCM] lists the elements of
kidnapping as follows:
(1) That the accused seized, confined, inveigled,
decoyed, or carried away a certain person;
(2) That the accused then held such person
against that person’s will;
23
United States v. Riley, 58 M.J. 305, 311 (C.A.A.F. 2003)
(quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319).
24
Id.
18
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
(3) That the accused did so willfully and
wrongfully; and
(4) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of
the accused was to the prejudice of good order and
discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to
bring discredit upon the armed forces.25
To determine whether the asportation – or the “carrying away”26 –
of an individual is more than an incidental or momentary
detention, this Court considers the following factors:
a. The occurrence of an unlawful seizure, confinement,
inveigling, decoying, kidnapping, abduction or
carrying away and a holding for a period. Both
elements must be present.
b. The duration thereof. Is it appreciable or de
minimis? This determination is relative and turns on
the established facts.
c. Whether these actions occurred during the
commission of a separate offense.
d. The character of the separate offense in terms of
whether the detention/asportation is inherent in the
commission of that kind of offense, at the place where
the victim is first encountered, without regard to the
particular plan devised by the criminal to commit it.
. . .
e. Whether the asportation/detention exceeded that
inherent in the separate offense and, in the
circumstances, evinced a voluntary and distinct
intention to move/detain the victim beyond that
necessary to commit the separate offense at the place
where the victim was first encountered. . . .
f. The existence of any significant additional risk to
the victim beyond that inherent in the commission of
the separate offense at the place where the victim is
first encountered. It is immaterial that the
25
MCM, Part IV, para. 92.b.
26
Black’s Law Dictionary 109 (7th ed. 1999) (defining
“asportation”).
19
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
additional harm is not planned by the criminal or
that it does not involve the commission of another
offense.27
In the case at bar, Appellant’s confession, which the
military judge found to be voluntary and credible, and the
forensic evidence of the murder, including Chafin’s body and the
crime scene itself, establish the following. While Chafin was
seated as a passenger in Appellant’s truck, en route to a remote
location several miles from Appellant’s apartment, Appellant
strangled Chafin from behind with a cord, thereby confining
Chafin and holding him against his will in the truck. When
Chafin attempted to flee from the truck, Shelton pinned him to
the ground, while Appellant stabbed him, thereby further holding
Chafin against his will. These acts of restraint and
asportation occurred prior to the actual murder, and exceeded
those acts inherent to the commission of murder, as Appellant
and Shelton could have killed Chafin in the apartment, or in the
truck before Shelton drove to a secluded location. Appellant
experienced an increased risk as a result of these acts, as he
was less likely to find help in the secluded location to which
he was driven.
27
United States v. Santistevan, 22 M.J. 538, 543 (N.M.C.M.R.
1986) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v.
Newbold, 45 M.J. 109, 112 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (endorsing Santistevan
factors).
20
United States v. Seay, No. 03-0246/AR
We therefore hold that a reasonable trier of fact could
find beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of kidnapping
were satisfied: that Appellant confined Chafin and held him
against his will in the truck, that Appellant did so willfully
and wrongfully, and that this conduct was prejudicial to good
order and discipline in the military, as well as service-
discrediting.
DECISION
The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals is affirmed.
21
United States v. Seay II, No. 03-0246/AR
ERDMANN, Judge (dissenting in part, concurring in part and
concurring in the result):
I concur with the majority on Issues I, II and V. I
respectfully dissent from their resolution of Issues III and IV.
I find no corroboration of the confession to larceny and would
reverse the Army Court of Criminal Appeals on Issue III,
rendering Issue IV moot.
The corroboration requirement for admission of a confession
at court-martial requires independent evidence which establishes
the trustworthiness of the confession.1 The purpose of the
corroboration rule “is to prevent ‘errors in convictions based
upon untrue confessions alone’ or suspect convictions based upon
words which might ‘reflect the strain and confusion’ caused by
‘the pressure of a police investigation.’”2
Although we have described the quantum of independent
evidence required for corroboration as “slight,”3 Military Rule
of Evidence 304(g)(1) still requires that it be sufficient to
raise an inference of the truth of the essential facts admitted.
“Slight” in this context does not mean the barest wisp of
possibility. An inference of truth is raised only when "there
is substantial independent evidence that the offense has been
1
United States v. Maio, 34 M.J. 215, 218 (C.M.A. 1992).
2
United States v. Yeoman, 25 M.J. 1, 4 (C.M.A. 1987)(quoting
Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 153 (1954)).
3
Yeoman, 25 M.J. at 4.
1
United States v. Seay II, No. 03-0246/AR
committed."4 Here, there is simply no independent evidence,
substantial or otherwise, that a larceny has been committed.
The majority opinion concludes that Seay’s confession to
larceny of Chafin’s wallet was sufficiently corroborated, but
base that conclusion on a skein of inferences that arise from
facts unessential to the offense of larceny:
When a person confesses to participation in the
larceny of a wallet, it is reasonable to infer
the truth of the confession from the fact that
the victim named in the confession knew the
Appellant, died as a result of foul play, was
found in a concealed place, and did not have a
wallet at the time or thereafter. We therefore
hold that these reasonable inferences adequately
corroborated Appellant’s confession[.]
Relying on these inferences as independent evidence, the
majority opinion stretches the corroboration requirement beyond
the breaking point. The corroboration rule requires independent
evidence upon which inferences can be drawn, not inferences
which substitute for evidence. Apart from the confession
itself, no evidence suggests that Chafin ever possessed a wallet
at all, much less that he was carrying one at the time of his
murder.
The majority opinion notes that “[i]t is not necessary for
the members to conclude that Chafin carried a wallet.” However,
without evidence that Chafin possessed a wallet, we can give no
4
United States v. Melvin, 26 M.J. 145, 146 (C.M.A. 1988)
(quoting Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. at 156)).
2
United States v. Seay II, No. 03-0246/AR
weight to the fact that no wallet was found. There is no fact
from which the essential truth of the confession may be
inferred: i.e., that a wallet was stolen.
We have previously held that there was insufficient
corroboration to illegal drug use where independent evidence
showed only that the appellant had the opportunity to ingest
illegal drugs and was with friends who had previously used
illegal drugs.5 Similarly, we have found insufficient
corroboration to child abuse where independent evidence showed
only that the accused parent had access and opportunity.6 In
this latter case, United States v. Faciane, we noted that
“[a]lthough the Government argues that appellant's exclusive
custody of the child establishes that he had access and the
opportunity to abuse her, we are unwilling to attach a criminal
connotation to the mere fact of a parental visit.”7
The fact that the victim’s body was found in a concealed
place, that he died as the result of foul play, that he knew
Seay, and that a wallet was not found with the body is simply
not enough to “corroborate[] the essential facts [of the
larceny] to justify sufficiently an inference of their truth.”8
Lacking substantial independent evidence that a larceny was
5
United States v. Rounds, 30 M.J. 76 (C.M.A. 1990).
6
United States v. Faciane, 40 M.J. 399, 403 (C.M.A. 1994).
7
Id.
8
Military Rule of Evidence 304(g).
3
United States v. Seay II, No. 03-0246/AR
committed, the military judge erred by admitting Seay’s
confession to the larceny as evidence against him.
I would therefore reverse the decision of the Court of
Criminal Appeals as to Issue III and set aside Seay’s conviction
for larceny, thus mooting Issue IV. Nonetheless, because Seay’s
sentence would be unaffected by this change as a result of his
mandatory minimum life sentence for premeditated murder,9 I
concur in the result.
9
Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 918
(2000).
4