U.S. v. Wright, 53 M.J. 476

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. the presumption is that a rule of evidence is constitutional unless lack of constitutionality is clearly and unmistakably shown

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. in a “judgment of the Court”, MRE 413, “Evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases”, was found to be constitutional in the face of appellant’s claim that the rule violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Balancing

1. MRE 413, “Evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases”, creates an exception to MRE 404(b)’s general prohibition against the use of a defendant’s propensity to commit crimes and is subject to the balancing test of MRE 403
2. before admitting evidence under MRE 413, “Evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases”, the military judge must apply a balancing test under MRE 403 and consider the following non-exclusive factors: (1) strength of proof of prior acts; (2) probative weight of evidence; (3) potential for less prejudicial evidence; (4) distraction of factfinder; (5) time needed for proof of prior conduct; (6) temporal proximity; (7) frequency of the acts; (8) presence or lack of intervening circumstances; and (9) the relationship between the parties

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Expert / Scientific Testimony

1. expert testimony may not take the form of testimony concerning the credibility of the victim or other witnesses, absent a proper foundation under MRE 405; here, where expert was well aware of his role and military judge stepped in to exclude inadmissible evidence, the testimony of an expert did not impermissibly bolster the credibility of a victim

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Other Acts

1. MRE 413, “Evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases”, creates an exception to MRE 404(b)’s general prohibition against the use of a defendant’s propensity to commit crimes and is subject to the balancing test of MRE 403
2. before admitting evidence under MRE 413, “Evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases”, three threshold findings are required: (1) the accused is charged with an offense of a sexual nature; (2) the evidence proffered is evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense of sexual assault; and (3) the evidence is relevant under MREs 401 and 402
3. before admitting evidence under MRE 413, “Evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases”, the military judge must apply a balancing test under MRE 403 and consider the following non-exclusive factors: (1) strength of proof of prior acts; (2) probative weight of evidence; (3) potential for less prejudicial evidence; (4) distraction of factfinder; (5) time needed for proof of prior conduct; (6) temporal proximity; (7) frequency of the acts; (8) presence or lack of intervening circumstances; and (9) the relationship between the parties
4. in addition to a requirement to balance under MRE 403, MRE 413, “Evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases”, also protects: (1) by limiting the uncharged misconduct to serious offenses; (2) by requiring the evidence to meet the relevancy requirements of MREs 401 and 402 and enforced through MRE 104(b); (3) by requiring the military judge to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the offenses occurred; and (4) by the notice requirement in MRE 413(b) which ensures that the admission of evidence does not threaten the presumption of innocence
5. in a “judgment of the Court”, MRE 413, “Evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases”, was found to be constitutional in the face of appellant’s claim that the rule violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Experts

1. expert testimony may not take the form of testimony concerning the credibility of the victim or other witnesses, absent a proper foundation under MRE 405; here, where expert was well aware of his role and military judge stepped in to exclude inadmissible evidence, the testimony of an expert did not impermissibly bolster the credibility of a victim

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

1. the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law; therefore, the standard of review is de novo