U.S. v. Tanner, 63 M.J. 445

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Balancing

1. evidence under MRE 414 is subject to a balancing test pursuant to MRE 403, under which relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the members

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Other Acts

1. under MRE 404(b), evidence of uncharged misconduct is expressly inadmissible as a general matter to show propensity to commit the charged crime, but it may be admissible for other purposes
2. MRE 404(b) does not provide a basis for admission of evidence during sentencing that is not otherwise admissible under RCM 1001(b)(4)
3. MRE 414, which addresses the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes in child molestation cases, establishes a presumption in favor of admissibility of evidence of prior similar crimes in order to show predisposition to commit the designated crimes; as such, MRE 414 stands in sharp contrast to MRE 404(b), which bars uncharged misconduct as evidence of predisposition
4. the structure of MRE 404(b) permits admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts only upon a showing by the proponent of a specifically relevant purpose to be served under the circumstances of the particular case
5. MRE 414 does not contain a prohibition against predisposition evidence; instead, in a court-martial for child molestation, MRE 414 provides a vehicle for the admissibility of other acts of child molestation committed by the accused; the rule reflects a presumption that other acts of child molestation constitute relevant evidence of predisposition to commit the charged offense; as such, in a child molestation case, evidence of a prior act of child molestation directly relates to the offense of which the accused has been found guilty and is therefore relevant during sentencing under RCM 1001(b)(4)
6. evidence under MRE 414 is subject to a balancing test pursuant to MRE 403, under which relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the members

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Prior Convictions

1. for the purpose of admitting a prior conviction into evidence, a court-martial conviction occurs when a sentence has been adjudged; the prosecution may introduce evidence of a prior conviction during the pendency of an appeal therefrom

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Uncharged Misconduct

1. under MRE 404(b), evidence of uncharged misconduct is expressly inadmissible as a general matter to show propensity to commit the charged crime, but it may be admissible for other purposes
2. MRE 404(b) does not provide a basis for admission of evidence during sentencing that is not otherwise admissible under RCM 1001(b)(4)
3. MRE 414, which addresses the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes in child molestation cases, establishes a presumption in favor of admissibility of evidence of prior similar crimes in order to show predisposition to commit the designated crimes; as such, MRE 414 stands in sharp contrast to MRE 404(b), which bars uncharged misconduct as evidence of predisposition
4. the structure of MRE 404(b) permits admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts only upon a showing by the proponent of a specifically relevant purpose to be served under the circumstances of the particular case
5. MRE 414 does not contain a prohibition against predisposition evidence; instead, in a court-martial for child molestation, MRE 414 provides a vehicle for the admissibility of other acts of child molestation committed by the accused; the rule reflects a presumption that other acts of child molestation constitute relevant evidence of predisposition to commit the charged offense; as such, in a child molestation case, evidence of a prior act of child molestation directly relates to the offense of which the accused has been found guilty and is therefore relevant during sentencing under RCM 1001(b)(4)
6. evidence under MRE 414 is subject to a balancing test pursuant to MRE 403, under which relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the members

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. the prosecution’s sentencing evidence may include the accused’s service data from the charge sheet, personal data and evidence as to the character of the accused’s prior service, evidence of prior military or civilian convictions, evidence in aggravation, and evidence of rehabilitative potential
2. for the purpose of admitting a prior conviction into evidence, a court-martial conviction occurs when a sentence has been adjudged; the prosecution may introduce evidence of a prior conviction during the pendency of an appeal therefrom
3. the fact that information is inadmissible on sentencing as a record of conviction does not preclude its admission on other grounds if relevant and reliable
4. during sentencing, the prosecution is authorized to present evidence as to any aggravating circumstances directly relating to or resulting from the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty
5. during sentencing, uncharged misconduct will often be admissible as evidence in aggravation as circumstances directly relating to or resulting from the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty
6. MRE 404(b) does not provide a basis for admission of evidence during sentencing that is not otherwise admissible under RCM 1001(b)(4)
7. MRE 414 does not contain a prohibition against predisposition evidence; instead, in a court-martial for child molestation, MRE 414 provides a vehicle for the admissibility of other acts of child molestation committed by the accused; the rule reflects a presumption that other acts of child molestation constitute relevant evidence of predisposition to commit the charged offense; as such, in a child molestation case, evidence of a prior act of child molestation directly relates to the offense of which the accused has been found guilty and is therefore relevant during sentencing under RCM 1001(b)(4)

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. the admission during sentencing of appellant’s prior conviction that was then on appeal but subsequently reversed did not constitute prejudicial error; in the present case, the MRE 414 predisposition evidence underlying the reversed conviction would have been admissible under RCM 1001(b)(4), subject to balancing; because the evidence was admitted without objection as a prior conviction under RCM 1001(b)(3)(A), the military judge did not conduct a balancing test in the context of MRE 414; however, in the context of the evidence at issue, the absence of balancing under MRE 403 and MRE 414 did not constitute prejudicial error; the information as to appellant’s prior misconduct offered at his trial depicted appellant’s sexual molestation of a member of his family -- his fifteen-year-old stepdaughter -- during the same period of time as he committed the offenses of which he now stands convicted, which involved sexual abuse of another member of his family -- his ten-year-old biological daughter; under the circumstances of this case, including appellant’s concurrent sexual abuse of two different minor members of his family, the absence of balancing under MRE 403 and MRE 414 during sentencing was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

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

1. the validity of the sentence in the later court-martial may be affected if the prior conviction introduced during sentencing is reversed on appeal; in such an instance, an appellate court tests for prejudice from admission of that prior conviction by determining whether the sentence in the later court-martial might have been different had the conviction not been introduced during sentencing; in the course of evaluating potential prejudice, the court considers whether the same information otherwise would have been admissible at the sentence proceeding and at a sentence rehearing
2. where the military judge did not conduct a balancing test in the context of MRE 414, an appellate court reviews the evidence without giving any deference to the decision of the military judge