of the crime. Our de novo review of the record convinces us that “considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable fact finder could have found all the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324, 324 (C.M.A.1987) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). But even if we were to find error, we are convinced any such error was harmless. Although the military judge may have thought otherwise, he could have taken judicial notice of the statute, even over defense objection, and instructed the members accordingly. MilitaRY Rule of Evidenoe 201A, Manual For Courts-Martial, United States (2008 ed.); see also United States v. Moore, 55 M.J. 772, 781 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2001) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, there was no dispute at trial
recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket recognizing the cause of action recognizing that mil r evid 201a authorizes judicial notice of domestic law even a of consequence to the action holding procedural requirements of mil r evid 201g do not apply where military judge takes judicial notice of domestic law that is a fact of consequence to the determination of the action