U.S. v. Moolick, 53 M.J. 174

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Hearsay › Excited utterances

1. an excited utterance is a statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition, and is not excluded by the hearsay rule even if the declarant is available to testify
2. military judge abused his discretion in excluding statement of appellant where: (1) victim burst into another’s room screaming accusations; (2) victim and appellant had an exchange of words during which the victim accused appellant of raping her; (3) appellant appeared upset and agitated; (4) the atmosphere in the room was chaos: and (5) appellant immediately responded with the statement in issue, "You grabbed me.”
3. military judge’s error in excluding excited utterance of appellant was materially prejudicial where: (1) neither the government nor the defense case was significantly stronger than the other; (2) the excited utterance was highly material; (3) and the quality of the evidence was high

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. if a military judge commits constitutional error by depriving an accused of his right to present a defense, the test on appellate review is whether the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless; the test for nonconstitutional error is whether the error itself had substantial influence on the findings
2. Prejudice from the military judge’s erroneous evidentiary ruling is evaluated by weighing (1) the strength of the government’s case, (2) the strength of the defense case, (3) the materiality of the evidence in question, and (4) the quality of the evidence in question

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

1. military judge’s ruling admitting or excluding evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion