U.S. v. Thompson, 67 M.J. 106

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134 -- Kidnapping Pre-2019 offenses

1. after finding the evidence of kidnapping factually and legally insufficient because the detention was de minimis, the CCA improperly substituted a conviction to reckless endangerment as an offense closely related to the offense of kidnapping, where a comparison of the elements of the two offenses revealed that a conviction for reckless endangerment required proof of elements that were not included in a specification for kidnapping, and reckless endangerment was not an offense necessarily included in the offense of kidnapping

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134 -- Reckless Endangerment (para 100a, MCM) Pre-2019 offenses

1. after finding the evidence of kidnapping factually and legally insufficient because the detention was de minimis, the CCA improperly substituted a conviction to reckless endangerment as an offense closely related to the offense of kidnapping, where a comparison of the elements of the two offenses revealed that a conviction for reckless endangerment required proof of elements that were not included in a specification for kidnapping, and reckless endangerment was not an offense necessarily included in the offense of kidnapping

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. after finding the evidence of kidnapping factually and legally insufficient because the detention was de minimis, the CCA improperly substituted a conviction to reckless endangerment as an offense closely related to the offense of kidnapping, where a comparison of the elements of the two offenses revealed that a conviction for reckless endangerment required proof of elements that were not included in a specification for kidnapping, and reckless endangerment was not an offense necessarily included in the offense of kidnapping

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. an appellate court reviews de novo whether a constitutional error in admitting evidence at trial was harmless
2. before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, an appellate court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; if there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence or error complained of might have contributed to the conviction, then the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. when determining whether a constitutional error is harmless, an appellate court should review the entire record
4. any error by the military judge in failing to suppress appellant’s confession that was allegedly obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where none of the admissions made by appellant in his confession related to any of the offenses of which the members found him guilty, and the military judge gave the appropriate limiting instruction on the use of uncharged misconduct and the proper spillover instruction regarding evidence of multiple charges

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

1. an appellate court reviews de novo whether a constitutional error in admitting evidence at trial was harmless
2. before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, an appellate court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; if there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence or error complained of might have contributed to the conviction, then the constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
3. when determining whether a constitutional error is harmless, an appellate court should review the entire record