U.S. v. Hardison, 64 M.J. 279

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. there are two primary limitations on the admission of aggravation evidence under RCM 1001(b)(4); first, such evidence must be directly relating to the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty; this rule does not authorize introduction in general of evidence of uncharged misconduct and is a higher standard than mere relevance; the second limitation is that any evidence that qualifies as aggravation evidence must also pass the test of MRE 403, which requires balancing between the probative value of any evidence against its likely prejudicial impact
2. the meaning of directly related aggravating evidence under RCM 1001(b)(4) is a function of both what evidence can be considered and how strong a connection that evidence must have to the offenses of which the accused has been convicted; regarding the strength of the connection required between admitted aggravation evidence and the charged offense, the link between the RCM 1001(b)(4) evidence of uncharged misconduct and the crime for which the accused has been convicted must be direct as the rule states, and closely related in time, type, and/or often outcome, to the convicted crime

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. plain error is established when: (1) an error was committed; (2) the error was plain, or clear, or obvious; and (3) the error resulted in material prejudice to substantial rights
2. the military judge committed plain error by admitting, as evidence in aggravation at sentencing, enlistment documents in which the accused admitted to preservice use of marijuana and pledged not to use drugs in the Navy, where the evidence was not directly related to the offense of using marijuana for which the accused was convicted, its admission was clear and obvious error in light of the language of RCM 1101(b)(4), and its admission materially prejudiced the accused’s substantial rights; the material prejudice resulted from the fact that (1) the accused’s trial and sentencing was before members, (2) the military judge emphasized that all matters offered in aggravation should be considered by the members, and (3) the accused’s case in extenuation and mitigation showed four positive evaluations, the absence of any negative evaluations, no prior nonjudicial punishments or convictions, and her admission to having made a mistake; it was not evident that the accused so clearly deserved her bad-conduct discharge such that the evidence of preservice drug use was irrelevant to the members’ decision; it seems likely that the outcome in the sentencing portion of appellant’s trial may have been different had the evidence been properly excluded

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

1. in the absence of a defense objection, an appellate court reviews a claim of erroneous admission of evidence for plain error
2. appellant has the burden of persuading the court that the three prongs of the plain error test are satisfied