U.S. v. Maynard, 66 M.J. 242

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. the military judge did not commit plain error in failing to sua sponte rule that testimony on sentencing regarding the alleged anti-war and anti-American material left in appellant’s room after he went AWOL was improper evidence in aggravation of his AWOL offense; even if the judge erred in admitting this testimony, appellant failed to establish that the admission was plainly and obviously erroneous; under the circumstances of this case, the testimony that appellant had left behind only a few personal items when he departed for a two-week leave did not so obviously lack a direct relationship to the AWOL offense that the military judge was obliged to take sua sponte action; and even though the testimony described some of the items as anti-American propaganda, the testimony also indicated that appellant left them displayed in his barracks room; this testimony could be read to suggest that appellant intentionally left the articles in question as “a display” for those who would be investigating his disappearance

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. when the defense fails to object to admission of specific evidence, the issue is waived, absent plain error
2. the plain error standard is met 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; appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the three prongs of the test are met
3. the military judge did not commit plain error in failing to sua sponte rule that testimony on sentencing regarding the alleged anti-war and anti-American material left in appellant’s room after he went AWOL was improper evidence in aggravation of his AWOL offense; even if the judge erred in admitting this testimony, appellant failed to establish that the admission was plainly and obviously erroneous; under the circumstances of this case, the testimony that appellant had left behind only a few personal items when he departed for a two-week leave did not so obviously lack a direct relationship to the AWOL offense that the military judge was obliged to take sua sponte action; and even though the testimony described some of the items as anti-American propaganda, the testimony also indicated that appellant left them displayed in his barracks room; this testimony could be read to suggest that appellant intentionally left the articles in question as “a display” for those who would be investigating his disappearance

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

1. the plain error standard is met 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; appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the three prongs of the test are met