U.S. v. Lewis, 51 M.J. 376

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Right to Present a Defense

1. appellant was prejudicially chilled in the presentation of his defense case where military judge erroneously held view that RCM 701(b)(2) required presentation of corroborating witnesses in order to establish innocent ingestion defense and thereby: (1) prevented appellant from introducing evidence which could have rebutted the government’s circumstantial case on the issue of knowledge; (2) would not permit defense counsel to introduce any evidence that some person may have had a motive to contaminate appellant’s drink on certain nights; (3) prevented persuasive argument on this specific defense theory; and (4) failed to instruct the members that the government had the burden with respect to the circumstantial defense evidence of innocent ingestion actually admitted, as well that which was erroneously excluded

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Art. 112a -- Wrongful Use, Possession, etc, of Controlled Substances Pre-2019 offenses

1. in proving the knowing use of drugs, the prosecution can rely upon a permissive inference of wrongfulness, including knowledge; and in the face of evidence of innocent ingestion the prosecution must also persuade the factfinder to disbelieve this defense evidence or discount it in deciding to draw the permissible inference of wrongfulness

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Innocent Ingestion

1. in proving the knowing use of drugs, the prosecution can rely upon a permissive inference of wrongfulness, including knowledge; and in the face of evidence of innocent ingestion the prosecution must also persuade the factfinder to disbelieve this defense evidence or discount it in deciding to draw the permissible inference of wrongfulness
2. disclosure of the defense of innocent ingestion under RCM 701(b)(2) requires disclosure of witnesses to innocent ingestion, other than the accused, only if an accused intends to call such witnesses and does not otherwise limit the right of the accused to testify in his/her own behalf
3. military judge erroneously held view that RCM 701(b)(2) required presentation of corroborating witnesses in order to establish innocent ingestion defense and, as a result, limited appellant’s ability to convey his version of the facts concerning innocent ingestion, prevented counsel from framing this issue by barring any reference to this defense in his opening statement or closing argument, and failed to give instructions on innocent ingestion as required by case law

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Discovery

1. disclosure of the defense of innocent ingestion under RCM 701(b)(2) requires disclosure of witnesses to innocent ingestion, other than the accused, only if an accused intends to call such witnesses and does not otherwise limit the right of the accused to testify in his/her own behalf

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. appellant suffered substantial prejudice requiring reversal of his conviction where military judge erroneously held view that RCM 701(b)(2) required presentation of corroborating witnesses in order to establish innocent ingestion defense and, as a result, limited appellant’s ability to convey his version of the facts concerning innocent ingestion, prevented counsel from framing this issue by barring any reference to this defense in his opening statement or closing argument, and failed to give instructions on innocent ingestion as required by case law
2. if errors, either separately or together, amount to a constitutional violation, the government must show that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; if the errors were non-constitutional, an appellant must show that they substantially prejudice his/her material rights
3. appellant was prejudicially chilled in the presentation of his defense case where military judge erroneously held view that RCM 701(b)(2) required presentation of corroborating witnesses in order to establish innocent ingestion defense and thereby: (1) prevented appellant from introducing evidence which could have rebutted the government’s circumstantial case on the issue of knowledge; (2) would not permit defense counsel to introduce any evidence that some person may have had a motive to contaminate appellant’s drink on certain nights; (3) prevented persuasive argument on this specific defense theory; and (4) failed to instruct the members that the government had the burden with respect to the circumstantial defense evidence of innocent ingestion actually admitted, as well that which was erroneously excluded

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. if errors, either separately or together, amount to a constitutional violation, the government must show that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; if the errors were non-constitutional, an appellant must show that they substantially prejudice his/her material rights