U.S. v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334

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

1. even if offenses are not multiplicious as a matter of law with respect to double jeopardy concerns, the prohibition against unreasonable multiplication of charges has long provided courts-martial and reviewing authorities with a traditional legal standard – reasonableness – to address the consequences of an abuse of prosecutorial discretion in the context of the unique aspects of the military justice system

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

1. Court of Criminal Appeals was well within its authority under Article 66(c), UCMJ, to determine the circumstances, if any, under which it would apply waiver or forfeiture to a claim of unreasonable multiplication of charges; Court of Criminal Appeals did not exceed its authority in concluding that it had authority to consider all claims of unreasonable multiplication of charges, even if raised for the first time on appeal, and to consider waiver only if an accused affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily relinquishes the issue at trial

Miscellaneous Matters: Multiplicity and Lesser Included Offenses: Multiplicity

1. the prohibition against multiplicious charges and the prohibition against unreasonable multiplication of charges are distinct legal prohibitions, founded upon distinct legal principles
2. the prohibition against multiplicity is necessary to ensure compliance with the constitutional and statutory restrictions against Double Jeopardy
3. RCM 906(b)(12) expressly recognizes the right of an accused to submit a motion for appropriate relief based on "multiplicity of offenses for sentencing purposes" and, until the Manual is amended, remains a valid basis for relief under the Manual

Miscellaneous Matters: Multiplicity and Lesser Included Offenses: Unreasonable Multiplication of Charges

1. the prohibition against multiplicious charges and the prohibition against unreasonable multiplication of charges are distinct legal prohibitions, founded upon distinct legal principles
2. the principle prohibiting unreasonable multiplication of charges is one that is well established in the history of military law, and although that principle has been placed in the non-binding Discussion to RCM 307(c)(4), that action by the President did not have the effect of repealing the principle, thereby enabling imaginative prosecutors to multiply charges without limit
3. the prohibition against unreasonable multiplication of charges addresses those features of military law that increase the potential for overreaching in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion
4. even if offenses are not multiplicious as a matter of law with respect to double jeopardy concerns, the prohibition against unreasonable multiplication of charges has long provided courts-martial and reviewing authorities with a traditional legal standard – reasonableness – to address the consequences of an abuse of prosecutorial discretion in the context of the unique aspects of the military justice system
5. Court of Criminal Appeals was well within its authority under Article 66(c), UCMJ, to determine the circumstances, if any, under which it would apply waiver or forfeiture to a claim of unreasonable multiplication of charges; Court of Criminal Appeals did not exceed its authority in concluding that it had authority to consider all claims of unreasonable multiplication of charges, even if raised for the first time on appeal, and to consider waiver only if an accused affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily relinquishes the issue at trial
6. in reviewing issues of unreasonable multiplication of charges, Court of Criminal Appeals is making a determination of law under a classic legal test – whether the action under review was "reasonable" or "unreasonable"; those courts may exercise their discretion to develop frameworks for addressing unreasonable multiplication of charges under the classic legal test rather than under an equitable standard