U.S. v. Bridges, 66 M.J. 246

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Generally

1. as the sentencing authority, a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly absent clear evidence to the contrary

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Presumptions, Inferences

1. as the sentencing authority, a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly absent clear evidence to the contrary

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. under Article 59(a), UCMJ, an error of law regarding the sentence does not provide a basis for relief unless the error materially prejudiced the substantial rights of the accused
2. even assuming that a letter from the brig officer reporting that appellant had a negative attitude while in confinement and had violated several prison regulations was erroneously admitted to rebut appellant’s presentencing good character evidence, the alleged error was not prejudicial under Article 59(a), UCMJ, where the military judge was the sentencing authority and there was no indication that the judge gave significant weight to the brig violations noted in the letter, particularly in light of the fact that the record contained ample additional evidence in aggravation from appellant’s personnel records and the testimony of witnesses; any error in the admission of the brig letter did not substantially influence the adjudged sentence, and appellant failed to demonstrate that any error materially prejudiced his substantial rights