U.S. v. Hall, 66 M.J. 53

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Generally

1. for nonconstitutional errors, the government must demonstrate that the error did not have a substantial influence on the findings

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. an appellate court evaluates claims of prejudice from an evidentiary ruling by weighing four factors: (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; the same four-pronged test is applied for the erroneous admission of government evidence as for the erroneous exclusion of defense evidence
2. an evidentiary error in allowing a non-expert government investigative agent to provide expert testimony that burn injuries suffered by an infant victim were not accidental was harmless, where the government’s case was strong, if not overwhelming, the defense case was weak, even implausible, and the quality of the agent’s testimony was duplicative when compared to that of the actual expert in the case, who not only testified to a firm belief that the injuries were non-accidental, but also suggested that the cause of the injuries was the child being held in hot water; in light of the qualitative difference in professional background and expertise, as well as the overlap in testimony between the actual expert and the agent, the agent’s testimony regarding nonaccidental burn indications was not qualitatively significant in the context of this case; as a result, the government met its burden of demonstrating that the agent’s testimony did not have a substantial influence on the findings

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

1. whether an error, constitutional or otherwise, was harmless, is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo; for nonconstitutional errors, the government must demonstrate that the error did not have a substantial influence on the findings