U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE
C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS
________________________
No. ACM 40084
________________________
UNITED STATES
Appellee
v.
Jonathon A. DOMINGUEZ-SANDOVAL
Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant
________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary
Decided 31 March 2022
________________________
Military Judge: Wesley A. Braun (arraignment); Andrew R. Norton.
Sentence: Sentence adjudged 11 January 2021 by GCM convened at
Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Sentence entered by
military judge on 30 March 2021: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement
for 12 months, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand.
For Appellant: Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF; Major Kasey W. Hawkins,
USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, USAF; Major John
P. Patera, USAF; Major Brittany M. Speirs, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne,
Esquire.
Before KEY, ANNEXSTAD, and MEGINLEY, Appellate Military
Judges.
Judge MEGINLEY delivered the opinion of the court, in which Senior
Judge KEY and Judge ANNEXSTAD joined.
________________________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as
precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.
________________________
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
MEGINLEY, Judge:
In accordance with his pleas and pursuant to a pretrial agreement, a gen-
eral court-martial composed of a military judge sitting alone convicted Appel-
lant of three specifications of cyber harassment, on divers occasions, in viola-
tion of Subtitle 2, Part 5, Chapter 33, Section 4.1(a)(2), New Jersey Code of
Criminal Justice (N.J. Stat. § 2C:33–4.1), assimilated into federal law by the
Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA),
18 U.S.C. § 13, in violation of Article 134, Uni-
form Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
10 U.S.C. § 934.1,2 Appellant was sen-
tenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 12 months, reduction to the
grade of E-1, and a reprimand. The convening authority approved Appellant’s
request for deferment and waiver of the automatic forfeitures for the benefit of
his dependents, and approved the sentence in its entirety.
Appellant raises three assignments of error on appeal: (1) whether his
cyber-harassment convictions, which were based on New Jersey state law and
assimilated into federal law, were barred by the specifically enumerated of-
fense of indecent language under Article 134, UCMJ; (2) in the alternative,
whether Appellant’s guilty pleas to the same convictions were improvident due
to the military judge’s use of the Manual for Courts-Martial’s definition of “in-
decent;” and (3) whether the “convictions . . . were improvident” as Appellant’s
language was not indecent when considered in the context of a pornographic
website.3 We have carefully considered issue (3) and determine it has no merit
and warrants no discussion or relief. See United States v. Matias,
25 M.J. 356,
361 (C.M.A. 1987). We find no error that has materially prejudiced the sub-
stantial rights of Appellant, and affirm the findings and sentence.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant joined the Air Force in September 2017 and, at the time of his
offenses, was stationed at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JBMDL), New
Jersey. Appellant’s offenses originated in his dormitory room, located on
JBMDL, an installation under exclusive federal jurisdiction. At the time of his
1 Unless otherwise stated, all references in this opinion to the punitive articles of the
UCMJ are to those contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016
ed.). Because the charges and specifications were referred to trial after 1 January 2019,
the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.) applies. See Exec. Order
13,825, §§ 3, 5,
83 Fed. Reg. 9889, 9889–90 (
8 Mar. 2018).
2 The pretrial agreement capped the maximum amount of confinement to 18 months.
3 Appellant raises this third issue pursuant to United States v. Grostefon,
12 M.J. 431
(C.M.A. 1982).
2
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
court-martial, Appellant was 26 years old. As part of his pretrial agreement,
Appellant agreed to a stipulation of fact. The information provided in the stip-
ulation of fact and in Appellant’s providence inquiry form the basis for the fol-
lowing factual background. In an effort to not further exploit the victims in this
case, we have declined to specifically name the social media platforms and web-
sites Appellant used to perpetrate his crimes.
A. Victim AS
Between 1 August 2018 and 30 November 2018, Appellant became angry
with AS, an acquaintance, who had previously made a report of sexual assault
against Appellant to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI).4 In
response to her report, Appellant created a fake profile on a pornographic web-
site which permits users to post and stream content. In creating this profile,
Appellant used AS’s name, hometown, and pictures obtained from her actual
social media accounts. From the time of its creation, Appellant maintained ex-
clusive control over the false profile which contained graphic, indecent, lewd,
and disturbing descriptions of AS’s purported sexual preferences, history, and
desires.
Further, in the profile, Appellant included AS’s actual username for two of
her social media accounts so that viewers could send her lewd and indecent
photos and messages. Appellant provided this information knowing it would
cause AS extreme emotional harm. Appellant acknowledged he engaged with
other users on the pornographic website through the fake profile he had cre-
ated, to include responding to multiple direct messages from users who be-
lieved they were engaging with AS. Those responses were as lewd and indecent
as language he used to create AS’s fake profile. During his providence inquiry,
Appellant stated, “I knew if people saw what I posted, it would be upsetting,
embarrassing and degrading for [AS]. I wanted to upset her at the time I did
this.” Appellant agreed his language was “lewd and offensive,” and “extremely
vulgar, disgusting, [and] degrading.”
4 Appellant was initially charged with sexual assault upon AS, in violation of Article
120, UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. § 920, however, that charge and its specification were with-
drawn and dismissed with prejudice after arraignment in accordance with the pretrial
agreement. Appellant was also charged with two specifications of invasion of privacy
in violation of Subtitle 2, Part 1, Chapter 14, Section 9(c), New Jersey Code of Criminal
Justice (N.J. Stat. § 2C:14-9(c)), assimilated into federal law by
18 U.S.C. § 13. Arguing
that the specifications were preempted by Article 117a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 917a, De-
fense moved to dismiss the specifications, which the Government did not oppose. The
military judge granted the motion.
3
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
AS did not consent to or in any way communicate a desire to Appellant that
she wanted an account on the pornographic website, much less one which so-
licited viewers to send nude pictures to her other social media accounts.5 In
describing the effect Appellant’s actions had on her, AS testified in presentenc-
ing that one morning when she woke up she had received “over 100” videos,
pictures, and messages on one social media platform. She also “had over 50
[direct messages] . . . and friend requests” on another social media platform.
Some of the messages included videos “of males jerking off and [ejaculating] on
a mirror, [or] [ejaculating] on themselves.”
AS clarified that “jerking off” meant that these men “were masturbating to
their phone,” and “sending it directly to [her].” AS estimated there were over
100 of these messages. AS stated, “I tried to delete them. [The social media
account] was glitching. It wouldn’t let me delete them. I had to keep opening
them and clicking fast through them to get them off of my phone and they just
didn’t stop.” AS then stated, “[The men] would get mad that I didn’t respond to
them. They would tell me, you made this profile and you don’t want to contact
and talk to any of us, [and you] don’t want to send [us] pictures.” Finally, AS
discussed their desires: “They asked for me to send pictures of my boobs. They
asked me to send pictures of me touching myself . . . [and] they asked [me] . . .
to do stuff on the phone, basically[,] like phone sex.” AS also stated that she
was concerned for her safety: “I was afraid to go to the mall, I was afraid to do
a lot of different things. I just did what I needed to get done at that time and
then I would go back to my dorm and isolate myself in my dorm room.”
B. Victim AG
In October or November 2018, Appellant was also upset with AG. Following
the end of a long off-and-on relationship with Appellant, AG began to date an-
other man. Like he did to AS, Appellant created another fake profile on the
same pornographic website using AG’s name and personal details, including
her hometown—knowing people from her hometown would reach out to her.
The profile also contained graphic, lewd, and indecent descriptions of AG’s pur-
ported sexual desires.
In addition to the false profiles described above, Appellant also had his own
personal account on the pornographic website as well as on a second porno-
graphic website which also permitted users to upload and view pornographic
content during the charged timeframe. On the first of these personal accounts,
Appellant wrote a short comment that stated, in so many words, that when
5 Due to the graphic nature of Appellant’s posts, along with the identifying information
he disclosed about his victims, this court ordered the stipulation of fact and its attach-
ments sealed and has chosen not to disclose the full extent of Appellant’s communica-
tions and postings.
4
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
women wronged him, he would expose them. While in his dorm room at
JBMDL, Appellant also uploaded a video of AG performing oral sex on him to
this account and titled the video with lewd and indecent language. Appellant
wrote AG’s full name in the title. Appellant also uploaded screenshots of the
video to his photo album, which he similarly titled in a lewd and indecent man-
ner. Also during the same charged timeframe, Appellant used his profile and
uploaded the same video to his account on the second website and titled it using
lewd and indecent language.
Appellant acknowledged he created the fake profile pages and uploaded the
videos in order to cause AG extreme emotional distress and harm. During his
providence inquiry, Appellant specifically stated,
I also posted a video on the website of her performing oral sex on
me. I knew what I did was wrong. I intended to cause her emo-
tional harm when posting these things. [AG] is my ex-girlfriend.
I posted her name, her age and that she was from [ ], knowing
that strangers could contact her. I knew that the [the porno-
graphic website] profiles were open to the public and that any-
one could see them and what I was posting on them. I knew that
if people saw what I had posted, it would be upsetting, embar-
rassing and degrading for her. I wanted to upset her at the time
that I posted everything.
AG did not consent to Appellant posting her information on either of the
websites, nor did she communicate any desire that she wanted him to do so. In
presentencing, AG testified that Appellant’s actions “caused a great anxiety in
terms of my career,” and if “anyone found out or saw the video, I could have
lost my internship.” She also had anxiety because “I was very afraid that some-
one could find me and do physical harm to me.”
C. Victim TC
Appellant met TC via an online dating platform while he was on temporary
duty (TDY) at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. At some point during this TDY,
Appellant filmed TC performing oral sex on him. In October or November 2018,
Appellant became upset with TC because she was ignoring him on social media
and told him that she had a boyfriend. Appellant then uploaded the video of
her performing oral sex on him to his personal accounts on the two porno-
graphic websites and gave the video lewd and indecent titles. As with AG, Ap-
pellant took screenshots of the video which he uploaded and posted those to his
photo album. Appellant admitted he used lewd and indecent language in the
title for the video. Appellant committed these acts without the consent of TC.
During his providence inquiry, Appellant stated,
5
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
I posted lewd and indecent language about [TC] on [the two web-
sites] . . . I described her engaging in sexual acts. What I wrote
was very demeaning. None of it was true. All of it was inappro-
priate.
I also posted a video on the websites of her performing oral sex
on me. I knew what I did was wrong. I intended to cause her
emotional harm when I posted these things. I met [TC] on [the
dating platform] while TDY to Scott Air Force Base. I knew that
[the pornographic website] profiles were open to the public and
that anyone could see them and what I posted. I knew that peo-
ple – pardon, I knew if people saw what I posted [it] would be
upsetting, embarrassing and degrading for her. I wanted to up-
set her when I posted what I did.
D. AFOSI Investigation
During their investigation, AFOSI agents traced the uploaded videos to
email addresses associated with Appellant and to Internet protocol addresses
associated with his cell phone. Additionally, upon a proper search and seizure,
forensic analysis revealed that the two videos of AG and TG performing oral
sex, described above, were also present on Appellant’s digital devices. The anal-
ysis also showed four emails to Appellant—two from Appellant’s personal ac-
count on the first pornographic website stating that the video of AG was suc-
cessfully uploaded, dated 8 October 2018 and 15 November 2018, and two from
the second website—one referencing the video of AG and one referencing the
video of TC, both dated 22 October 2018.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Assimilation of New Jersey’s Cyber-Harassment Law
1. Additional Background
Appellant argues the Government “could have, and should have” charged
him with “the specifically enumerated offense of indecent language under Ar-
ticle 134, UCMJ,” instead of charging him with the New Jersey cyber-harass-
ment offense, because the military judge focused on the indecent language used
by Appellant during his providence inquiry. Under the assimilated New Jersey
crime of cyber-harassment, Appellant faced a maximum confinement of 54
months, or 18 months for each specification. However, had Appellant been
charged with indecent language under Article 134, UCMJ, he would have faced
a maximum confinement of 18 months, or 6 months for each specification. See
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.) (MCM), pt. IV, ¶ 89.e.(2).
6
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
With the exception of the names of the three victims, and the omission of a
reference to the name of the second website in AS’s specification, the specifica-
tions of the offenses to which Appellant pleaded guilty were identical and read
as follows:
In that [Appellant], on divers occasions, did, at Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, a place under exclusive federal juris-
diction, between on or about 1 August 2018 and on or about 30
November 2018, knowingly post lewd and indecent language
about [victim] on [the two pornographic websites], with the in-
tent to cause her emotional harm, in violation of Subtitle 2, Part
5, Chapter 33, Section 4.1(a)(2) of the New Jersey Code of Crim-
inal Justice, an offense not capital, assimilated into [f]ederal law
by
18 U.S. Code Section 13.
New Jersey criminalized “cyber-harassment” in 2014.6 In regards to Appel-
lant’s case, there are two elements which must be satisfied for a finding of
guilty: (1) Appellant made a communication in an online capacity via any elec-
tronic device or through a social networking site with the purpose of harassing
another, and (2) Appellant knowingly sent, posted, commented, requested, sug-
gested, or proposed any lewd, indecent, or obscene material to or about a person
with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable
person in fear of physical or emotional harm. See N.J. Stat. § 2C:33-4.1. The
statute does not define the terms lewd, indecent, or obscene material.
The military judge advised Appellant that the elements of his offenses were
as follows:
(1) That between on or about 1 August 2018 and on or about 30
November 2018, on divers occasions, [Appellant] did, knowingly,
post language about [each victim] on [the first pornographic
website] and [the second website] (except for AS);
(2) That the language was lewd and indecent;
(3) That [Appellant] did so with the intent to cause [each victim]
emotional harm;
(4) That [Appellant] did so at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lake-
hurst, New Jersey;
(5) That Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, is a
place under exclusive federal jurisdiction;
6N.J. Stat Ann. § 2C:33-4.1 (West 2022) (L. 2013, c. 272, § 1, eff. Jan. 17, 2014;
amended by 2021, c. 327, § 2, eff. 21 Dec. 2021; 2021, c. 338, § 1, eff. 10 Jan. 2022).
7
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
(6) That the offense was a violation of Subtitle 2, Part 5, Chapter
33, section 4.1(a)(2) of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice;
(7) That the offense under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Jus-
tice is assimilated into [f]ederal law by
18 United States Code,
Section 13; and
(8) That the offense is not a capital offense.
The military judge then advised Appellant that
“[i]ndecent” language is that which is grossly offensive to mod-
esty, decency or propriety, or shocks the moral sense because of
its vulgar, filthy or disgusting nature, or its tendency to incite
lustful thought. Language is indecent if it tends reasonably to
corrupt morals or incite libidinous thoughts. The language must
violate community standards.
The military judge’s explanation of “indecent” language is the same as found
in the Manual. See MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 89(c). With respect to the New Jersey stat-
ute for cyber-harassment, the military judge advised Appellant,
a person commits the crime of cyber harassment if while making
a communication in an online capacity, via any electronic device
or through a social networking site, and with the purpose to har-
ass another, the person knowingly sends, posts, comments, re-
quests, suggests or proposes any lewd, indecent or obscene ma-
terial to or about a person with the intent to emotionally harm a
reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physi-
cal or emotional harm to his person.
2. Law
Congress enacted the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act to adopt
state criminal laws for areas of exclusive or concurrent federal
jurisdiction, provided federal criminal law, including the UCMJ,
has not defined an applicable offense for the misconduct commit-
ted. The Act applies to state laws validly existing at the time of
the offense without regard to when these laws were enacted,
whether before or after passage of the Act, and whether before
or after the acquisition of the land where the offense was com-
mitted.
MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 60.c.(4)(c)(ii). “If conduct by an accused does not fall under any
of the enumerated Article 134 offenses (paragraphs 61 through 113 of this
Part), a specification not listed in this Manual may be used to allege the of-
fense.” MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 60.c.(6)(a).
8
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
“[T]he purpose of the ACA is not to enforce state law, but to fill gaps in the
federal criminal law.” United States v. Robbins,
48 M.J. 745, 749 (A.F. Ct.
Crim. App. 1998) (citation omitted), aff’d,
52 M.J. 159 (C.A.A.F. 1999). “[A]
substantial difference in the kind of wrongful behavior covered (on the one
hand by the state statute, on the other, by federal enactments) will ordinarily
indicate a gap for a state statute to fill . . . .” Robbins, 52 M.J. at 162 (quoting
Lewis v. United States,
523 U.S. 155, 164 (1998)). In focusing on the “gap-filling
purpose” of the ACA, the United States Supreme Court, in Lewis, stated,
[A] court must first ask the question that the ACA’s language
requires: Is the [Appellant]’s “act or omission . . . made punisha-
ble by any enactment of Congress.” If the answer to this question
is “no,” that will normally end the matter. The ACA presumably
would assimilate the statute. If the answer to the question is
“yes,” however, the court must ask the further question whether
the federal statutes that apply to the “act or omission” preclude
application of the state law in question, say, because its applica-
tion would interfere with the achievement of a federal policy, be-
cause the state law would effectively rewrite an offense defini-
tion that Congress carefully considered, or because federal stat-
utes reveal an intent to occupy so much of a field as would ex-
clude use of the particular state statute at issue.
Id. at 161–62.
“Whether an offense is preempted depends on statutory interpretation,
which is a question of law we review de novo.” United States v. Wheeler,
77 M.J.
289, 291 (C.A.A.F. 2018) (citation omitted). Appellant’s guilty plea neither for-
feits nor waives the issue of preemption. See Robbins, 52 M.J. at 160. The basis
for the preemption doctrine is the principle that if Congress “has occupied the
field for a given type of misconduct,” such as with offenses covered by Articles
80 through 132 in the Manual, then a specification alleging that conduct can-
not be created and punished under Article 134, UCMJ, simply to delete a vital
element. See id. at 160–61. A claim of preemption, therefore, presents a ques-
tion of subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court, and cannot be waived by
either a plea or failure to object. See United States v. Jones,
66 M.J. 704, 706
(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2008). Notwithstanding Appellant’s pretrial agreement to
“waive[ ] all waivable motions,” Rule for Courts-Martial 705(c)(1)(B) states “[a]
term or condition in a pretrial agreement shall not be enforced if it deprives
the accused . . . the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the court-martial . . . .”
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.) (2019 MCM). “If [an] of-
fense [is] improperly assimilated, it [is] not cognizable by a court-martial.” Rob-
bins, 52 M.J. at 160.
9
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
The Manual for Courts-Martial limits the assimilation of state criminal
statutes stating,
The preemption doctrine prohibits application of Article 134 to
conduct covered by Articles 80 through 132. For example, lar-
ceny is covered in Article 121, and if an element of that offense
is lacking—for example, intent— there can be no larceny or lar-
ceny-type offense, either under Article 121 or, because of
preemption, under Article 134. Article 134 cannot be used to cre-
ate a new kind of larceny offense, one without the required in-
tent, where Congress has already set the minimum require-
ments for such an offense in Article 121.
MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 60.c.(5)(a). Our superior court, the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Armed Forces, has held that if the two following questions are
answered affirmatively, then assimilation is precluded by the preemption doc-
trine:
The primary question is whether Congress intended to limit
prosecution for wrongful conduct within a particular area or
field to offenses defined in specific articles of the Code; the sec-
ondary question is whether the offense charged is composed of a
residuum of elements of a specific offense and asserted to be a
violation of either Articles 133 or 134, which, because of their
sweep, are commonly described as the general articles.
Robbins, 52 M.J. at 161 (citing United States v. McGinnis,
35 M.J. 149, 151–
52 (C.M.A. 1992)). Put another way, preemption is the “legal concept that
where Congress has occupied the field of a given type of misconduct by address-
ing it in one of the specific punitive articles of the code, another offense may
not be created and punished under Article 134, UCMJ, by simply deleting a
vital element.” United States v. Kick,
7 M.J. 82, 85 (C.M.A. 1979) (citations
omitted).
Preemption prevents the Government from turning to a “hypothetical fed-
eral noncapital crime that lessened its evidentiary burden at trial by circum-
venting the mens rea element or removing a specific vital element from an
enumerated UCMJ offense.” Wheeler, 77 M.J. at 293. In other words, the
preemption doctrine “is designed to prevent the [G]overnment from eliminat-
ing elements from congressionally established offenses under the UCMJ, in
order to ease their evidentiary burden at trial.” Id. (citations omitted).
The required elements for an offense under the “crimes and offenses not
capital” clause of Article 134, UCMJ, are: (1) the accused did or failed to do
10
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
certain acts that satisfy each element of the state statute (including assimi-
lated state law); and (2) that the charged offense was not capital. See MCM, pt.
IV, ¶ 60.b.(2).
With respect to the elements of a crime, in interpreting Lewis, the United
States Army Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that “[w]hen analyzing
whether a state law is preempted and not subject to incorporation or whether
that state law can be applied on federal enclaves via assimilation, the Supreme
Court expressly rejected a strict elements or ‘precise acts’ test.” United States
v. Rodriguez, ARMY 20130577,
2016 CCA LEXIS 145, at *6 (A. Ct. Crim. App.
7 Mar. 2016) (unpub. op.) (citing Lewis, 523 U.S. at 165). “Instead, the high
court reasoned, ‘it seems fairly obvious that the [Federal Assimilative Crimes
Act] will not apply where both state and federal statutes seek to punish ap-
proximately the same wrongful behavior.’” Id.
“The President first included indecent language as an enumerated offense
under Article 134, UCMJ, in 1984. MCM pt. IV, para. 89 (1984 ed.).” United
States v. Avery,
79 M.J. 363, 367 (C.A.A.F. 2020). The elements of the crime of
indecent language under Article 134, UCMJ, are: (1) the accused orally or in
writing communicated to another person certain language; (2) such language
was indecent; and (3) 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. See MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 89.b. Our
superior court has stated that what constitutes indecent language is language
“which is grossly offensive to modesty, decency or propriety, or shocks the
moral sense, because of its vulgar, filthy, or its disgusting nature, or its ten-
dency to arouse lustful thought. The language used must violate community
standards of decency and substantially exceed customary limits of candor.”
United States v. French,
31 M.J. 57, 59 (C.M.A. 1990) (citations omitted).
Whether language is indecent depends in part on context and “we must exam-
ine the entire record of trial to determine the precise circumstances under
which the charged language was communicated.” United States v. Green,
68
M.J. 266, 270 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (citations omitted). “Words do not have to be
indecent per se to constitute an offense. Depending on the context in which
they are used, even words which are themselves innocuous can be indecent.”
United States v. Stitely, No. ACM 37039,
2008 CCA LEXIS 170, at *11 (A.F.
Ct. Crim. App. 23 Apr. 2008) (unpub. op.) (citing United States v. Coleman,
48
M.J. 420, 423 (C.A.A.F. 1998)). The “test is whether the particular language is
calculated to corrupt morals or excite libidinous thoughts.” United States v.
Brinson,
49 M.J. 360, 364 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (citations omitted).
3. Analysis
The crime of communicating indecent language under Article 134, UCMJ,
has remained generic and virtually unchanged for the past 38 years. When it
11
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
was enacted in 1984, there were no online dating platforms or websites that
allowed users to upload their own pornographic content. There were no smart
phones or social media applications. There was no Internet as we know it. The
focus of the indecent language offense is whether an accused has written or
spoken particular language that is calculated to corrupt morals or excite libid-
inous thoughts and which has an effect on good order and discipline or the
reputation of the armed forces. The scope of what could be indecent language
is rather broad and is dependent on the particular circumstance.
Conversely, New Jersey’s cyber-harassment law goes beyond mere commu-
nication of written or oral indecent language. It focuses on online or cyber con-
duct where there is specific intent to inflict emotional harm or induce fear of
physical or emotional harm. State v. Burkert,
174 A.3d 987, 996 (N.J. 2017)
(observing the law “limits the criminalization of speech mostly to those com-
munications that threaten to cause physical or emotional harm or damage.”).
The law is an example of a state’s attempt at addressing changing times and a
reflection of a modern and highly digital world. It looks at a perpetrator’s in-
tent to harm another by cyber or digital means, and the potentially endless
tangible and intangible effects that behavior may have on victims due to ubiq-
uity and permanence of things posted on Internet-based social media.
The UCMJ offense of communicating indecent language and the New Jer-
sey offense of cyber-harassment do not seek to punish the same, or even ap-
proximately the same, wrongful behavior. Even the most superficial review of
the two offenses reveals why Appellant’s argument must fail—only cyber-har-
assment requires a victim. While Appellant may believe he committed the vic-
timless crime of indecent language, this court does not. Appellant’s intent to
cause harm is an aspect of New Jersey’s law that goes beyond the scope of
indecent language. Appellant went beyond merely communicating indecent
language to another. He used multiple digital platforms, including two web-
sites dedicated, in part, to the viewing and uploading of pornography, to dis-
close his victims’ personal and contact information, and with AG and TC, he
attach videos of them engaged in sexual acts. With regard to AS, Appellant’s
acts were done as reprisal for her reporting his alleged criminal conduct to law
enforcement. Appellant intentionally crafted an environment where the pri-
vacy of his victims could be regularly invaded. Even if Appellant or some other
person could remove the videos from the world-wide web, the damage had al-
ready been done. As soon as these fake profiles were created and videos were
uploaded, the identifying information and videos could be accessed by anyone.
Through his use of indecent and lewd language, along with personal infor-
mation about the victims, Appellant’s behavior potentially placed these women
in a never-ending and ever-growing state of exploitation.
12
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
Applying the Lewis test, Appellant’s acts could have been charged under
Article 134, UCMJ, Indecent language. However, we find the indecent lan-
guage offense under Article 134 does not reveal an intent to eliminate an ele-
ment as to exclude use of the New Jersey law. The New Jersey law does not
interfere with the achievement of a federal policy, and it does not effectively
rewrite an offense definition that Congress has already occupied. Thus, the
Article 134 offense does not preclude application of the New Jersey law through
assimilation.
In this case, the Government “incorporated a specific [state] statute aimed
with precision at a particular type of intentional conduct with its own eviden-
tiary burden.” Wheeler, 77 M.J. at 293 (citations omitted). Preemption doctrine
would prevent the Government from assimilating New Jersey state law to “cir-
cumvent an element of an enumerated offense” or to “lessen[ ] its evidentiary
burden at trial.” See id. However, that did not happen in this case. Quite the
opposite: the Government was required to meet a specific, heightened mens
rea with respect to Appellant’s intent to cause emotional harm. This height-
ened mens rea further undermines the claim that the New Jersey statue was
preempted by Article 134’s enumerated indecent language offense. If anything,
had this case been litigated, assimilating the New Jersey crime of cyber-har-
assment would have made obtaining a conviction more difficult given that
there were more elements the Government would have to prove, the specific
mens rea, and the foundational and evidentiary requirements needed to ad-
dress the social media aspects of the crimes. Since the offense of cyber-harass-
ment is cognizable by a court-martial, we find the Government was not
preempted from charging New Jersey’s crime on cyber-harassment, and there
is no substantial basis to overturn Appellant’s guilty plea on this ground.
B. Providence of Appellant’s Guilty Pleas
1. Additional Background
Appellant argues that his guilty pleas were improvident because the mili-
tary judge erred when he used the definition of indecent conduct from the Man-
ual, instead of the definitions or explanations from New Jersey state law. Ap-
pellant also claims the military judge failed to define “lewd” during the provi-
dence inquiry, despite all three specifications using the words “lewd and inde-
cent.”
2. Law
We review a military judge’s decision to accept the accused’s guilty plea for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Inabinette,
66 M.J. 320, 322 (C.A.A.F.
2008). “A military judge abuses this discretion if he fails to obtain from the
accused an adequate factual basis to support the plea—an area in which we
afford significant deference.”
Id. “There exists strong arguments in favor of
13
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
giving broad discretion to military judges in accepting pleas, not least because
facts are by definition undeveloped in such cases.”
Id. “[I]n reviewing a military
judge’s acceptance of a plea for an abuse of discretion appellate courts apply a
substantial basis test: Does the record as a whole show ‘a substantial basis in
law and fact for questioning the guilty plea.’”
Id. (quoting United States v.
Prater,
32 M.J. 433, 436 (C.M.A. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
“An essential aspect of informing Appellant of the nature of the offense is
a correct definition of legal concepts. The judge’s failure to do so may render
the plea improvident.” United States v. Negron,
60 M.J. 136, 141 (C.A.A.F.
2004) (first citing United States v. O’Connor,
58 M.J. 450, 453 (C.A.A.F. 2003);
and then citing United States v. Pretlow,
13 M.J. 85, 88–89 (C.M.A. 1982)).
However, “an error in advising the accused does not always render a guilty
plea improvident. Where the record contains factual circumstances that objec-
tively support the guilty plea to a more narrowly construed statute or legal
principle, the guilty plea may be accepted.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
3. Analysis
Assessing the record as a whole, we find there is no substantial basis in law
or fact to question Appellant’s guilty plea. In particular, we find the military
judge did not abuse his discretion in accepting Appellant’s pleas to cyber-har-
assment. Appellant is correct that the military judge did not define the word
lewd, nor did he define the word indecent under New Jersey law. Yet, in State
v. Tate, the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged, “In the absence of a
legislative definition, we generally ascribe to the words used ‘their ordinary
meaning and significance.’”
106 A.3d 1195, 1204 (N.J. 2015) (cleaned up) (cita-
tions omitted). “The words profane and indecent, and even obscene, are not
susceptible to neat and fixed definitions.”
Id. (footnote omitted). That court
later stated,
Indecent is defined variously as “altogether unbecoming”; “con-
trary to what the nature of things or what circumstances would
dictate as right or expected or appropriate”; “not conforming to
generally accepted standards of morality”; “tending toward or
being in fact something generally viewed as morally indelicate
or improper or offensive”; and “being or tending to be obscene.”
14
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
Id. (citations omitted). Section 2C:14-4, of the New Jersey Code of Criminal
Justice, Lewdness, defines “lewd acts” as “exposing of the genitals for the pur-
pose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the actor or of any other
person.” N.J. Stat. § 2C:14-4 (1992).7
There is no reason to believe that New Jersey’s cyber-harassment law indi-
cates some notion or idea that is different than what constitutes indecent or
lewd behavior under applicable military law. Even though the military judge
did not explain the meaning of lewd and used the Manual’s definition of inde-
cent, Appellant’s own words, coupled with the stipulation of fact, demonstrate
that he understood these words within the legal framework. When the military
judge asked Appellant if he understood the definition of indecent, he said “yes”
without any questions. Regarding AS, when Appellant was asked why he be-
lieved that messages that he sent to other users via the first pornographic web-
site were “lewd and indecent language,” he responded, “I used the same dis-
gusting language that was found on the user profile with other users.” He then
provided examples of the language he used, which this court has intentionally
not included. The military judge again asked Appellant why he believed the
language he posted about AS was “lewd and indecent language,” to which he
stated, “It was extremely vulgar, disgusting, degrading.” When the military
judge asked the same question regarding AG, Appellant acknowledged the lan-
guage he used was lewd and indecent because what he “posted was very sexual
in nature” and “degrading and disgusting.” Appellant also opined that the lan-
guage posted would “shock the moral sense because of its vulgar filthy, or dis-
gusting nature.” Finally, Appellant confirmed the titles of the video he up-
loaded to the two websites were the lewd comments for the offense regarding
TC.
Therefore, we disagree with Appellant that the Manual’s definition of inde-
cent is not an adequate substitute for New Jersey’s legal definitions of inde-
cent. Neither Appellant nor his counsel notified the military judge that Appel-
lant did not understand what lewd or indecent meant, nor did they suggest an
alternative definition. Finally, the record contains ample facts that objectively
support the guilty plea. The military judge’s inquiry was not limited solely to
7 The Government notes: (1) there is one New Jersey appellate court decision, State v.
Carroll,
196 A.3d 106, 115 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018), where that court concluded
“the term ‘indecent’ is associated with nudity or sexuality;” (2) that the opinion “did
not elaborate further” on the meaning; and (3) that there are no published decisions
from New Jersey appellate courts that define “lewd” within the context of the cyber-
harassment statute. “Lewdness” is defined in N.J. Stat. § 2C:14-4, but is focused on
the exposure of one’s genitals “for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual de-
sire of the actor or of any other person.”
15
United States v. Dominguez-Sandoval, No. ACM 40084
Appellant’s communication of indecent language. The military judge ques-
tioned Appellant about his behavior, and how his actions violated the New Jer-
sey law. Appellant provided a sworn stipulation of fact, which contained
screenshots of Appellant’s personal accounts on the two pornographic websites
along with postings related to his victims. The military judge reviewed the
stipulation with Appellant, secured Appellant’s agreement that it was all true,
and confirmed that Appellant wished to admit it was true. In addition, after
the military judge explained the elements of each offense to Appellant, the mil-
itary judge had Appellant explain in his own words why he was guilty of each
offense. The military judge asked follow-on questions to ensure that Appellant
agreed each element of each offense had been established, and that his actions
were intentional and unlawful under the circumstances. Following the military
judge’s questions, counsel for both parties agreed no further inquiry was re-
quired. Having reviewed Appellant’s providence inquiry, along with his stipu-
lation of fact, we are satisfied Appellant’s pleas are provident.
In summary, the military judge’s inquiry regarding the providence of Ap-
pellant’s guilty pleas was thorough. At no point did Appellant indicate he was
confused or mistaken about what he was pleading to, or that his pleas were
less than fully informed, voluntary, or factually accurate. Finding no substan-
tial basis in law or fact in the record of the court-martial proceedings to ques-
tion Appellant’s guilty pleas, we find the military judge did not abuse his dis-
cretion by finding Appellant guilty of the cyber-harassment offenses under
New Jersey law.
III. CONCLUSION
The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no
error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Ar-
ticles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ,
10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d) (2019 MCM). Accord-
ingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT
CAROL K. JOYCE
Clerk of the Court
16
