U.S. v. Roberson, 65 M.J. 43

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Duress

1. RCM 916(h) provides for the affirmative defense of duress at trials by courts-martial; it is a defense to any offense except killing an innocent person that the accused’s participation in the offense was caused by a reasonable apprehension that the accused or another innocent person would be immediately killed or would immediately suffer serious bodily injury if the accused did not commit the act; the apprehension must reasonably continue throughout the commission of the act; if the accused has any reasonable opportunity to avoid committing the act without subjecting the accused or another innocent person to the harm threatened, the defense shall not apply

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Hearsay › Residual hearsay

1. MRE 803(3) provides the hearsay exception for statements of then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition: a statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution, revocation, identification, or terms of the declarant’s will
2. out-of-court hearsay statements which reflect the declarant’s state of mind as to intent are admissible to prove that the declarant’s intent subsequently was carried out; factors such as a statement’s vagueness go only to the weight to be given the evidence and not to its admissibility
3. military judge abused his discretion when he prevented the accused from presenting evidence under the state of mind hearsay exception in support of his affirmative defense of duress; the testimony of a witness that the accused’s co-actor told him that the accused owed him money for disposing of some of the co-actor’s drugs and that he was willing to get his money by any necessary means fell within the hearsay exception for a declarant’s existing mental state and intent and could be used to show that the co-actor’s intent was carried out

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Opinion Testimony

1. MRE 701 provides that a lay witness may express an opinion based upon personal observation where that opinion is relevant to a fact in issue and not based upon specialized, scientific knowledge
2. so long as the opinion is based upon personal observation and is relevant, a lay witness may testify about another’s emotional state
3. military judge abused his discretion in excluding the opinion of a witness concerning the emotional effect that the co-actor’s statement that he was coming to get his money from the accused by any means had upon the accused; the evidence was admissible under MRE 701, as the opinion of the witness was based on personal observation and was relevant to the accused’s defense of duress based on his claim that his co-actor threatened him with bodily harm if he did not participate in the crimes of larceny and forgery, because it supported a conclusion that the accused was in fear of his co-actor
4. the opinion testimony of a witness that the accused’s co-actor was an aggressive-type person likely to strong-arm people, offered in conjunction with his testimony that the accused’s co-actor told him that the accused owed him money and that he was willing to get his money by any necessary means, was relevant as an opinion from which the factfinder could reasonably conclude that the accused perceived his co-actor as a threat; this relevance was not tied to his co-actor acting in accordance with that characteristic, which would be prohibited under MRE 404(b); rather, it went to the reasonableness of any fear the accused may have had in connection to the duress defense, which was based on his claim that his co-actor threatened him with bodily harm if he did not participate in the crimes of larceny and forgery

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Relevance

1. an accused at a court-martial is entitled to present relevant evidence that is not otherwise inadmissible; relevant evidence is that which has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence
2. the standard for relevance in MRE 401 is relatively low
3. military judge erred in excluding evidence that a witness told the accused about the statement of the accused’s co-actor that the accused owed him money for disposing of some of the co-actor’s drugs and that he was willing to get his money by any necessary means, as the evidence of his co-actor’s intent was relevant to the accused’s affirmative defense of duress, which was based on his claim that his co-actor threatened him with bodily harm if he did not participate in the crimes of larceny and forgery, because the communication showed that the accused was aware of the threat and thus it had a tendency to show that there may have been a basis for the accused to be fearful
4. military judge abused his discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that the accused’s co-actor had a handgun, as the testimony, by contributing to the reasonableness of the accused’s fear, was relevant and would have lent support to the accused’s affirmative defense of duress, which was based on his claim that his co-actor threatened him with bodily harm if he did not participate in the crimes of larceny and forgery

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. military judge’s erroneous exclusion of testimony that supported the accused’s affirmative defense of duress was not constitutional because the accused presented other evidence to establish virtually the same facts in support of his duress defense, and thus he was not denied a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense; this non-constitutional error must then be tested for harmlessness under Article 59(a), UCMJ; here, the erroneous exclusion of testimony did not materially prejudice the accused’s substantial rights, where the government’s case was strong, the duress defense was markedly less than compelling, and the excluded evidence was of no better quality than that which was already before the finder of fact, nor would it have strengthened the duress defense by remedying its deficiencies

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

1. a military judge’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard
2. an appellate court reviews the prejudicial effect of an erroneous evidentiary ruling de novo
3. an appellate court evaluates prejudice from an erroneous evidentiary ruling by weighing (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; using this evaluation, an appellate court will reverse a case only if it determines that the finder of fact would have been influenced by the evidence that was erroneously omitted