U.S. v. Grijalva, 55 M.J. 223

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. a military judge’s failure to correctly apply the law is an abuse of discretion

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Plea Negotiations

1. the protections of Mil. R. Evid. 410, which are not to be applied in an excessively formalistic or technical approach, apply by implication to a plea that is rejected by the military judge

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. if a guilty plea is rejected, any statement made by an accused during the plea inquiry is inadmissible; however, a guilty plea to a lesser-included offense may be used to establish facts and elements common to both the greater and lesser offense within the same specification, and a court-martial may consider an appellant’s admissions made in connection with his guilty pleas in a state court proceeding
2. if the military judge errs by considering statements made by an accused that were outside the waiver of the right against self-incrimination that follows from a provident plea of guilty, the error would be of constitutional dimension, and the findings could not be affirmed unless the reviewing court is satisfied that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. military judge did not err by considering appellant’s admissions concerning elements of a lesser-included offense in determining appellant’s guilt of the greater offense; however, military judge did err by considering appellant’s admissions which pertained to the element of premeditation, an element of the greater offense to which the guilty plea had been rejected

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. if the military judge errs by considering statements made by an accused that were outside the waiver of the right against self-incrimination that follows from a provident plea of guilty, the error would be of constitutional dimension, and the findings could not be affirmed unless the reviewing court is satisfied that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
2. error of constitutional dimension - considering appellant’s admissions which pertained to the element of premeditation, an element of the greater offense to which the guilty plea had been rejected – was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where evidence of premeditation was overwhelming and uncontested

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

1. Court reviews de novo the issue of whether constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt