United States v. Tunstall

I concur in the majority’s judgment setting aside Appellant’s conviction for indecent acts. The specification did not place Appellant on notice that he would have to defend against committing a sexual act in an open and notorious manner, and there was no mention of this theory of the case until the findings instructions and arguments. See United States v. Wilkins, 71 M.J. 410, 414 n. 4 (C.A.A.F.2012); United States v. Rauscher, 71 M.J. 225, 226 (C.A.A.F.2012) (per curiam). I also concur in the majority’s judgment that Appellant was not prejudiced by the failure of the adultery specification…