Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • U
  • United States v. CartrightUnited States v. Cartright
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

United States v. Cartright

United States Air Force Court of Military Appeals
2013 WL 4734520 (2013)


The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Cartright (defendant), an Air Force enlisted man, for abusive sexual contact with a substantially incapacitated person, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 120(h), which was the military equivalent of 18 U.S.C. § 2232a. The court martial evidence established that AL, a female airman, and DL, a male airman, were staying overnight at Cartright's off-base house after an evening of socializing and heavy drinking. Several times during the night, Cartright molested AL sexually while she slept. Cartright broke off these molestations whenever AL woke up, and whenever she asked what he was doing, Cartright reassured her and she went back to sleep. The next morning, AL told DL about these incidents. DL testified that AL appeared neither hung over nor upset, and she proceeded to make breakfast for everyone and drive the two men to the airbase. DL mentioned the incidents to Cartright a week later, and Cartright said he did not remember them because he had been drunk at the time. Word of the incidents reached AL's supervisor, who reported Cartright to Air Force investigators. The military judge denied Cartright's motion for an instruction defining substantial incapacitation as a person's complete inability to be aware of, or respond in any way to, external circumstances or stimuli. Instead, the judge instructed the panel that substantial incapacitation can be induced by intoxication, sleep, unconsciousness, or anything else that renders a person unable to appraise or physically communicate non-consent or other competent decisions with respect to the sexual conduct at issue. The court martial panel found Cartright guilty and he appealed to the Air Force Court of Military Appeals.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial