U.S. v. Catrett, 55 M.J. 400

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Character

1. the military judge is charged with deciding whether a party has established a sufficient foundation for admission of opinion evidence concerning a person’s character; the military judge has considerable discretion in this regard
2. the military judge did not abuse her discretion in permitting a civilian to testify about appellant’s military character where some foundation was established by evidence that: (1) the witness’ father had been in the military; (2) the witness grew up on the "civil service side" of the military community; and (3) the witness had regular contact with the military and its personnel in various capacities

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

1. whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings is a de novo question of law to be decided on the basis of the facts found by the factfinder
2. appellant was in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings where: (1) the police told appellant he was not free to leave the living room unless a police officer accompanied him; (2) there was always an officer present to control appellant’s movements; (3) an officer testified that appellant was under detention, not free to leave, and would have been stopped if he attempted to do so; and (4) appellant never left the living room until he was taken to the police station
3. a “public safety” exception to Miranda warnings requirement applied where: (1) civilian police were responding to a domestic-assault complaint in which a gun was reportedly involved; (2) an empty holster was found during a search of appellant’s apartment before the challenged questioning; and (3) the questions asked by the police, although phrased in terms of the cause of the reported assault, were found by the judge to be legitimate attempts by police to locate the still-missing gun
4. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rejects argument that exceptions to the constitutionally based Miranda rule may not be carved out by the Supreme Court, citing Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 441 (2000)
5. assuming a Miranda violation, admitting appellant’s statement to civilian police that he hit the victim with a dog bone and a statue was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the victim testified to the same assault, eyewitness statements from appellant’s wife to the same effect were admitted, and the bloodied dog bone was discovered in plain view before appellant made the challenged incriminating admissions

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

1. whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings is a de novo question of law to be decided on the basis of the facts found by the factfinder
2. appellant was in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings where: (1) the police told appellant he was not free to leave the living room unless a police officer accompanied him; (2) there was always an officer present to control appellant’s movements; (3) an officer testified that appellant was under detention, not free to leave, and would have been stopped if he attempted to do so; and (4) appellant never left the living room until he was taken to the police station
3. a “public safety” exception to Miranda warnings requirement applied where: (1) civilian police were responding to a domestic-assault complaint in which a gun was reportedly involved; (2) an empty holster was found during a search of appellant’s apartment before the challenged questioning; and (3) the questions asked by the police, although phrased in terms of the cause of the reported assault, were found by the judge to be legitimate attempts by police to locate the still-missing gun
4. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rejects argument that exceptions to the constitutionally based Miranda rule may not be carved out by the Supreme Court, citing Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 441 (2000)
5. assuming a Miranda violation, admitting appellant’s statement to civilian police that he hit the victim with a dog bone and a statue was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the victim testified to the same assault, eyewitness statements from appellant’s wife to the same effect were admitted, and the bloodied dog bone was discovered in plain view before appellant made the challenged incriminating admissions

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Opinion Testimony

1. the military judge is charged with deciding whether a party has established a sufficient foundation for admission of opinion evidence concerning a person’s character; the military judge has considerable discretion in this regard

Trial Stages: Initial Review: Post-trial Recommendation

1. where defense counsel raised several post-trial claims of legal error at appellant’s court-martial, the minimal requirements of RCM 1106(d)(4) to respond were satisfied by noting in an addendum to the post-trial recommendation that the defense matters were attached to an addendum, incorporating those matters by reference, and stating, “Nothing contained in the defense submissions warrants further modification of the opinions and recommendations expressed in the Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendations.”

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. assuming a Miranda violation, admitting appellant’s statement to civilian police that he hit the victim with a dog bone and a statue was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the victim testified to the same assault, eyewitness statements from appellant’s wife to the same effect were admitted, and the bloodied dog bone was discovered in plain view before appellant made the challenged incriminating admissions

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

1. whether a suspect is in custody for purposes of Miranda warnings is a de novo question of law to be decided on the basis of the facts found by the factfinder