U.S. v. Hursey, 55 M.J. 34

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Balancing

1. when a military judge conducts a proper balancing test under Mil. R. Evid. 403, the evidentiary ruling will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion; when the military judge fails to articulate a balancing analysis on the record, the ruling is accorded less deference

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. Mil. R. Evid. 403 applies to sentencing evidence
2. military judge abused his discretion by admitting alleged rebuttal evidence on sentencing where: (1) the witness’ testimony had virtually no probative value because the witness lacked personal knowledge about the reason for appellant’s absence at the scheduled time for trial; (2) the evidence had the potential for wasting time by provoking a mini-trial on the reason for appellant’s absence; and (3) the evidence had the potential to mislead the members by suggesting, in a prejudicial manner and without basis, that appellant was so unreliable that he was absent without authority from his own court-martial

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. error in admitting potentially prejudicial and baseless testimony about the appellant’s absence at the scheduled time for trial as rebuttal on sentencing was harmless where: (1) the sentence adjudged was substantially less than the maximum authorized punishment; and (2) appellant’s personnel record with admissible evidence of misconduct and derelictions

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

1. evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion
2. when a military judge conducts a proper balancing test under Mil. R. Evid. 403, the evidentiary ruling will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion; when the military judge fails to articulate a balancing analysis on the record, the ruling is accorded less deference