Michael E. Harris - U.S. Navy - Convicted Sex Offender- Indecent Acts With A Child

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Children > Michael E. Harris

Name: Michael E. Harris

Case: United States v. Harris No. ACM 35672

Date Of Conviction: May 21, 2003

Plea: Guilty

Charges: Attempted Indecent Language With A Child

Military Branch: U.S. Navy

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO

The appellant was tried by a military judge alone sitting as a general court-martial at Hickam Air Force Base (AFB), Hawaii. Pursuant to his pleas, he was found guilty of four specifications of committing indecent acts upon the body of MG, his stepdaughter, a child under 16 years of age; and two specifications of communicating indecent language to MG, a child under 16 years of age, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934.

At the time of the appellant’s misconduct, MG was 11 and 12 years old. The military judge sentenced the appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 12 months and reduction to E-4. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

The appellant, his wife, their son, and MG lived in base housing at Hickam AFB, Hawaii. 1MG had lived with the appellant for approximately six years at the time of the incidents which led to the appellant’s court-martial.

On 17 December 2002, MG was doing her homework in her bedroom. She was dressed in her underwear and a T-shirt. The appellant came into MG’s bedroom and sat next to her. As the two were reviewing MG’s homework, the appellant placed his hand on MG’s thigh. The appellant saw MG’s pubic hair protruding from her underwear. He then asked MG, “How does your vagina look?” or words to that effect. In response MG said, “no.” The appellant apologized.

On 19 December 2002, MG was in her bedroom. She was wearing a bra and underwear as she was standing, facing the mirror. The appellant walked up and hugged MG from behind, pressing his forearms up and against MG’s bra. This caused the appellant’s forearms to make contact with MG’s breasts. The appellant then asked her, “How do your breasts look?” or words to that effect. MG became upset and said, “no.”The appellant apologized. Between 17 and 19 December 2002, the appellant was again in MG’s bedroom. While there, he pulled down MG’s shorts and underwear. He did this without warning, exposing MG’s buttocks to the appellant. MG’s genitals were also exposed but were facing away from the appellant. MG then bent over and pulled her clothes back up. At the time of this incident MG thought the appellant’s conduct was a joke because the appellant was laughing. However, the appellant stipulated and admitted at trial that he pulled down MG’s pants and underwear with the intent to gratify his sexual desires.

On 16 January 2003, the appellant was sitting in a recliner at his home playing with a computer. The appellant was having difficulty with the computer and a computer game. MG then came over to help fix the problem. As she was leaning over the recliner the appellant placed his arm on MG’s back. He then began to rub her back in a sweeping motion and purposely put his hand inside her pants and underwear and touched her buttocks. MG looked at the appellant and he pulled his hand out. However, only seconds later he again placed his hand inside her pants and underwear and touched her buttocks. Once again MG resisted. The appellant removed his hand. Finally, after the third time the appellant repeated this act, MG got up, went to her bedroom and cried until her mother came home. MG then told her mother what happened. When the appellant was asked why he did it he explained that he wanted MG to know this type of conduct was “normal.” At trial, the appellant stipulated that he repeatedly touched MG’s buttocks with the intent to gratify his sexual desires.