U.S. v. Norris, 55 M.J. 209

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Article 31

1. Article 31(b) applies only to situations in which, because of military rank, duty, or other similar relationship, there might be subtle pressure on a suspect to respond to an inquiry, and two prerequisites must be met before Article 31(b) will apply: (1) a questioner subject to the Code was acting in an official capacity in his inquiry as opposed to only having a personal motivation; and (2) the person questioned must perceive that the inquiry involved was more than a casual conversation
2. in reviewing a military judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress under Article 31(b), Court applies a clearly-erroneous standard of review to findings of fact and a de novo standard to conclusions of law
3. questioner was acting in a personal rather than an official capacity in conversation with accused, and Article 31(b) did not apply, where: (1) the questioner’s purpose was to understand and clarify the content of a letter written by his daughter to a man who had become a friend; (2) questioner did not seek out the accused with a view towards elevating the matter to a criminal investigation and prosecution; (3) at the time of the conversation, questioner considered the situation to be a family matter; and (4) the findings of fact, supported by the evidence, indicate that the conversation was between friends

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Warnings

1. Article 31(b) applies only to situations in which, because of military rank, duty, or other similar relationship, there might be subtle pressure on a suspect to respond to an inquiry, and two prerequisites must be met before Article 31(b) will apply: (1) a questioner subject to the Code was acting in an official capacity in his inquiry as opposed to only having a personal motivation; and (2) the person questioned must perceive that the inquiry involved was more than a casual conversation
2. in reviewing a military judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress under Article 31(b), Court applies a clearly-erroneous standard of review to findings of fact and a de novo standard to conclusions of law
3. questioner was acting in a personal rather than an official capacity in conversation with accused, and Article 31(b) did not apply, where: (1) the questioner’s purpose was to understand and clarify the content of a letter written by his daughter to a man who had become a friend; (2) questioner did not seek out the accused with a view towards elevating the matter to a criminal investigation and prosecution; (3) at the time of the conversation, questioner considered the situation to be a family matter; and (4) the findings of fact, supported by the evidence, indicate that the conversation was between friends

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Expert / Scientific Testimony

1. military judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling that witness was qualified as an expert with respect to a diagnostic opinion of post-traumatic stress disorder formulated in the course of providing a victim with the therapy that her family requested where: the witness was trained and experienced in counseling and treating victims of sexual abuse; the witness used her training and experience to reach certain conclusions about the victim’s ailments upon reasonable investigation; the record did not demonstrate that it was either inappropriate or unusual for a sexual abuse counselor such as the witness to reach a working diagnosis for purposes of proceeding with treatment

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Scientific Evidence

1. the admission of scientific evidence based on scientific knowledge, technical knowledge, and other specialized knowledge depends on a number of factors that go to the relevance and reliability of the evidence; these factors are aimed at ensuring the overall reliability of the evidence, including any information used to form the basis for an opinion
2. the standard of review of a military judge’s ruling admitting expert, scientific testimony is abuse of discretion

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Witnesses: Experts

1. military judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling that witness was qualified as an expert with respect to a diagnostic opinion of post-traumatic stress disorder formulated in the course of providing a victim with the therapy that her family requested where: the witness was trained and experienced in counseling and treating victims of sexual abuse; the witness used her training and experience to reach certain conclusions about the victim’s ailments upon reasonable investigation; the record did not demonstrate that it was either inappropriate or unusual for a sexual abuse counselor such as the witness to reach a working diagnosis for purposes of proceeding with treatment

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. where appellant did not contest admissibility of expert’s opinion at trial on the basis that there was an inadequate foundation upon which the witness reached a diagnosis, and where the defense raised no specific questions that would lead Court to conclude that it was inappropriate for expert witness to reasonably rely upon the factors she considered in reaching a working diagnosis, there was no basis on this record for finding error in this regard, much less plain error

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

1. the standard of review of a military judge’s ruling admitting expert, scientific testimony is abuse of discretion
2. in reviewing a military judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress under Article 31(b), Court applies a clearly-erroneous standard of review to findings of fact and a de novo standard to conclusions of law