U.S. v. Thompson, 63 M.J. 228

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Duress

1. the defense of duress applies when the accused has a (1) reasonable apprehension that (2) the accused or another innocent person would (3) immediately suffer death or serious bodily injury if the accused did not commit the act; a reasonable apprehension does not exist if the accused has any reasonable opportunity to avoid committing the act without subjecting himself or another innocent person to the harm threatened

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Uncharged Misconduct

1. the test for admissibility of uncharged acts is whether the evidence of the misconduct is offered for some purpose other than to demonstrate the accused’s predisposition to crime and thereby to suggest that the factfinder infer that he is guilty, as charged, because he is predisposed to commit similar offenses
2. to determine whether uncharged acts are admissible under MRE 404(b), a court uses a three-part test; the first prong of the test asks whether the evidence reasonably supports a determination by the factfinder that an appellant committed the prior misconduct; the standard required to meet this first prong is low; the second prong of the test asks what fact of consequence is made more or less probable by the existence of this evidence; and the final prong of the test calls for balancing under MRE 403
3. even though MRE 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, the evidence must be relevant to a fact in issue other than an accused’s character or predisposition to commit the charged offenses
4. the military judge abused his discretion by admitting statements about the accused’s preservice drug use to show knowledge of marijuana use and the absence of mistake, where the accused did not raise the issues of lack of knowledge or mistake of fact, and thus the evidence served no relevant purpose
5. the error in admitting statements about the accused’s preservice marijuana use was harmless and had no prejudicial impact on the accused’s substantial rights in his court-martial for wrongful use, possession, and distribution of marijuana, where the government’s case was compelling, the defense’s case was markedly less substantial, and the materiality and quality of the evidence was minimal

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. an appellate court conducts a de novo review to determine whether a nonconstitutional error in admitting evidence is prejudicial to an accused’s substantial rights, and it considers four factors: (1) the strength of the government’s case; (2) the strength of the defense case; (3) the materiality of the evidence in question; and (4) the quality of the evidence in question

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion and will not overturn that ruling unless it is arbitrary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable, or clearly erroneous, or influenced by an erroneous view of the law