The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals recently overturned the sexual assault conviction of Heriberto M. Melgoza, a U.S. Navy airman, while upholding a separate charge of indecent recording. This decision, made on August 27, 2026, has significant implications for military law and the definitions of consent in sexual assault cases.

Melgoza was initially convicted of sexual assault without consent and indecent recording following a general court-martial held at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida. He was sentenced to a reduction in rank, two years of confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. The court's ruling affects not only Melgoza but also the broader military community, as it clarifies legal standards regarding consent.

Background

The case began when Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Apprentice A.C., the victim, attended a party hosted by another airman. After consuming alcohol, A.C. engaged in consensual sexual activity with another individual, AN S.A., before returning to the party and later falling asleep in a bedroom. During this time, Melgoza entered the bedroom and engaged in sexual acts with A.C. without her consent, as she was unable to comprehend the situation due to her inebriated state.

A.C. testified that she was confused and believed she was with AN S.A. when Melgoza initiated sexual acts. She later realized it was Melgoza and pushed him away, seeking help. The prosecution charged Melgoza with sexual assault by inducing a belief that he was someone else, but this charge was dismissed before trial. The remaining charges led to his conviction for sexual assault without consent and indecent recording.

The Ruling

The court ruled on five assignments of error raised by Melgoza's defense. Notably, the court found that the military judge erred by instructing the jury on a novel definition of consent, stating, "To be freely given, consent must be informed." The judges concluded that this instruction was prejudicial and violated Melgoza's due process rights. They stated, "The instruction muddled, confused, and compromised the instructions as a whole, thereby implicating fundamental due process concerns."

As a result, the court set aside Melgoza's conviction for sexual assault without consent but upheld the conviction for indecent recording. The judges emphasized that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for indecent recording, as A.C. did not consent to being recorded during the sexual acts.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for military law, particularly regarding the definitions and standards of consent in sexual assault cases. The court's decision clarifies that consent must be informed and that any new theories of liability must be clearly defined and communicated to juries. This case may influence how future sexual assault cases are prosecuted and defended in military courts.

Moreover, the ruling highlights the importance of proper jury instructions in ensuring fair trials. The court's emphasis on due process rights reinforces the need for clarity in legal definitions, especially in sensitive cases involving sexual conduct.

What's Next

The court has authorized a rehearing for the sexual assault charge, while the conviction for indecent recording remains in place. Melgoza's legal team may appeal the decision or seek further clarification on the implications of the ruling. This case will likely continue to evolve as it moves through the military justice system.