U.S. v. Roberts, 52 M.J. 333

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Relevance

1. fact of a first claim of innocent ingestion does not necessarily disprove the innocence of a subsequent claim

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. even if cross-examination of appellant about previous positive drug test and appellant’s claim of innocent ingestion in response to that test was improper, appellant could not have been prejudiced under any standard where: (1) appellant was described as looking “[s]hocked,” “disheveled,” and like an “emotional wreck” when he was apprehended; (2) appellant admitted to his leading chief petty officer that “he did some coke”; (3) appellant’s written statement admitted receiving something from an acquaintance to cheer him up which appellant assumed was something else (cocaine); and, (4) appellant was impeached by his acknowledgement that he had been convicted of three specifications of false official statements, by a general court-martial convened about 7 years earlier
2. any error in admission of a witness’s testimony that child’s story “didn’t sound like a lie” which the military judge made clear he was not considering for the truth of what the child might have said, or any error in admission of a clinical social worker’s testimony which the military judge announced he would give very little weight, was not prejudicial in the context of this judge alone trial where the military judge was able to assess the credibility of the victim himself