CAAF summarily reverses NMCCA for apparently relying on facts from the Article 32 investigation

In United States v. Hayes, __ M.J. __, No. 08-0215/NA (C.A.A.F. Apr. 23, 2008) (summary disposition), CAAF observes that "it appears that in its rendition of the facts, the [Navy-Marine Corps] Court of Criminal Appeals may have considered matters from outside the record. The facts alleged in the decision appear to have been taken from the victim's summarized testimony presented at the Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 832 (2000), investigation, rather than from the evidence presented at trial." If so, NMCCA violated CAAF's case law holding that a CCA is limited to the evidence presented at trial when conducting factual sufficiency review and the evidence presented at trial plus matters considered by the CA before taking action when conducting sentence appropriateness review. See United States v. Beatty, 64 M.J. 456, 458 (C.A.A.F. 2007).

So in Hayes, CAAF granted review of whether NMCCA "failed to conduct a proper review under Article 66(c) where, in its rendition of the facts of the case, that court appears to have considered evidence from outside the record." Hayes, No. 08-0215/NA (citation omitted). Then CAAF instantly resolved that issue by setting aside NMCCA's decision, which can be found here.