U. S. v. Reynoso, 66 M.J. 208

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Generally

1. MRE 103(a)(1) states that in order to preserve an objection when the ruling is one admitting evidence, the objecting party must make a timely objection or motion to strike in the record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; on its face, MRE 103 does not require the moving party to present every argument in support of an objection, but does require argument sufficient to make the military judge aware of the specific ground for objection; in short, MRE 103 should be applied in a practical rather than a formulaic manner

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Summaries

1. the mere utterance, “objection on foundation,” did not preserve any issue under MRE 1006 regarding the chart itself or any hearsay issue regarding the underlying evidence upon which the chart was based; this is the very reason for the specificity requirement under MRE 103(a)(1)
2. MRE 1006 states that the contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation; the originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place; and the military judge may order that they be produced in court
3. summary evidence is admissible only if the underlying materials upon which the summary is based are admissible, with one exception; specifically, it is possible for a summary that is admissible under Rule 1006 to include information that would not itself be admissible if that information is reasonably relied upon by an expert preparing the summary
4. defense counsel’s objection on foundational grounds to a chart that an expert witness helped formulate to demonstrate the differences in basic allowance for housing rates and cost of living allowances for different locations did not preserve any issue on appeal regarding the chart itself or any hearsay issue regarding the underlying evidence upon which the chart was based, especially where defense counsel’s voir dire of the witness appeared designed to suggest that the witness was not in a position to know whether the figures he relied on were accurate
5. it was not plain error to admit a chart demonstrating the differences in basic allowance for housing rates and cost of living allowances for different locations under MRE 1006, a rule allowing information to be presented in the form of a chart or summary, even if the information on which the chart was based was not admissible, as the chart might have been admitted under the expert witness exception because the figures depicted on the chart were reasonably relied upon by the expert in personal administration matters who compiled the information from the DFAS website and appellant’s LESs; because the chart was not clearly inadmissible, in the absence of a more specific objection than foundation and some indication on the record that the foundational elements of MRE 1006 were not met, there was no plain error in admitting it

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Waiver

1. MRE 103(a)(1) states that in order to preserve an objection when the ruling is one admitting evidence, the objecting party must make a timely objection or motion to strike in the record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; on its face, MRE 103 does not require the moving party to present every argument in support of an objection, but does require argument sufficient to make the military judge aware of the specific ground for objection; in short, MRE 103 should be applied in a practical rather than a formulaic manner
2. the mere utterance, “objection on foundation,” did not preserve any issue under MRE 1006 regarding the chart itself or any hearsay issue regarding the underlying evidence upon which the chart was based; this is the very reason for the specificity requirement under MRE 103(a)(1)
3. defense counsel’s objection on foundational grounds to a chart that an expert witness helped formulate to demonstrate the differences in rates for basic allowance for housing and cost of living allowance for different locations did not preserve any issue on appeal regarding the chart itself or any hearsay issue regarding the underlying evidence upon which the chart was based, especially where defense counsel’s voir dire of the witness appeared designed to suggest that the witness was not in a position to know whether the figures he relied on were accurate

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. MRE 103(a)(1) states that in order to preserve an objection when the ruling is one admitting evidence, the objecting party must make a timely objection or motion to strike in the record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; on its face, MRE 103 does not require the moving party to present every argument in support of an objection, but does require argument sufficient to make the military judge aware of the specific ground for objection; in short, MRE 103 should be applied in a practical rather than a formulaic manner
2. the mere utterance, “objection on foundation,” did not preserve any issue under MRE 1006 regarding the chart itself or any hearsay issue regarding the underlying evidence upon which the chart was based; this is the very reason for the specificity requirement under MRE 103(a)(1)
3. defense counsel’s objection on foundational grounds to a chart that an expert witness helped formulate to demonstrate the differences in basic allowance for housing rates and cost of living allowances for different locations did not preserve any issue on appeal regarding the chart itself or any hearsay issue regarding the underlying evidence upon which the chart was based, especially where defense counsel’s voir dire of the witness appeared designed to suggest that the witness was not in a position to know whether the figures he relied on were accurate
4. it was not plain error to admit a chart demonstrating the differences in basic allowance for housing rates and cost of living allowances for different locations under MRE 1006, a rule allowing information to be presented in the form of a chart or summary, even if the information on which the chart was based was not admissible, as the chart might have been admitted under the expert witness exception because the figures depicted on the chart were reasonably relied upon by the expert in personal administration matters who compiled the information from the DFAS website and appellant’s LESs; because the chart was not clearly inadmissible, in the absence of a more specific objection than foundation and some indication on the record that the foundational elements of MRE 1006 were not met, there was no plain error in admitting it