This case clarifies what “viewing” means for purposes of Article 120c, Indecent Viewing. Specifically, “viewing” includes viewing a simultaneously created visual image of the private area of another person. The events surrounding this case occurred while appellant was deployed with his unit to Kandahar, Afghanistan. While deployed, the unit lived in housing that contained bathroom units. The bathrooms contained three shower stalls, all arranged in a row.  

What this case is about, in its most simple terms: This case addresses the application of MRE 412 (prohibition of evidence of sexual behavior or disposition of a victim), but also may be seen as an exploration into the Abuse of Discretion standard that appellate courts apply to trial judge’s rulings on evidence. 

What this case is about, in its most simple terms: This case upholds the three-part prejudice analysis examining the affect improper sentencing argument may have had on the punishment articulated in United States v. Fletcher. Importantly, the Court relies on the egregiousness of the misconduct in this case to uphold the sentence.