U.S. v. Stephens, 67 M.J. 233

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. a rule or other provision of the MCM cannot sanction a violation of an appellant’s constitutional rights
2. permitting a child victim’s father to testify during the government’s sentencing case about the effect the investigation and court-martial had on the victim was not a constitutional violation, where there was no explicit comment by the trial counsel or the father concerning appellant’s invocation of his constitutional rights to plead not guilty, confront the witnesses against him, and put the government to its proof, but rather, there was only a brief reference to the effect of the entire proceeding on the victim

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Balancing

1. sentencing evidence is subject to the requirements of the balancing test of MRE 403
2. under the MRE 403 balancing test, relevant evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; the overriding concern of MRE 403 is that evidence will be used in a way that distorts rather than aids accurate fact-finding
3. the probative value of the testimony of a child victim’s father during the government’s sentencing case about the effect the investigation and court-martial had on the victim was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice to appellant, where the father’s testimony was probative because it showed specific psychological harm that the child suffered as a result of appellant’s offense (i.e., she was no longer able to enjoy sports and other activities and had changed significantly), where the possibility that the court members might misuse this testimony as a comment on appellant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was remote, where the admission of this evidence did not distort accurate fact-finding, and where the evidence was relevant victim impact evidence and properly admitted under RCM 1001(b)(4)

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. RCM 1001(b)(4) provides that the trial counsel may present evidence as to any aggravating circumstances directly relating to or resulting from the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty; evidence in aggravation includes, but is not limited to, evidence of financial, social, psychological, and medical impact on or cost to any person who was the victim of an offense committed by the accused; testimony as to the effect of the process, including the trial, on the victim certainly comes within the rather broad ambit of this rule
2. sentencing evidence is subject to the requirements of the balancing test of MRE 403
3. permitting a child victim’s father to testify during the government’s sentencing case about the effect the investigation and court-martial had on the victim was not a constitutional violation, where there was no explicit comment by the trial counsel or the father concerning appellant’s invocation of his constitutional rights to plead not guilty, confront the witnesses against him, and put the government to its proof, but rather, there was only a brief reference to the effect of the entire proceeding on the victim
4. under the MRE 403 balancing test, relevant evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; the overriding concern of MRE 403 is that evidence will be used in a way that distorts rather than aids accurate fact-finding
5. the probative value of the testimony of a child victim’s father during the government’s sentencing case about the effect the investigation and court-martial had on the victim was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice to appellant, where the father’s testimony was probative because it showed specific psychological harm that the child suffered as a result of appellant’s offense (i.e., she was no longer able to enjoy sports and other activities and had changed significantly), where the possibility that the court members might misuse this testimony as a comment on appellant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was remote, where the admission of this evidence did not distort accurate fact-finding, and where the evidence was relevant victim impact evidence and properly admitted under RCM 1001(b)(4)
6. (testimony from the child victim’s father during the government’s sentencing case about the effect the investigation and court-martial had on the victim, including testimony that the victim was no longer able to enjoy sports and other activities and had changed significantly, was relevant victim impact evidence and properly admitted under RCM 1001(b)(4)) in sentencing appellant for offenses related to his inappropriate touching of the victim)

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

1. an appellate court tests a military judge’s admission or exclusion of evidence, including sentencing evidence, for an abuse of discretion
2. when the military judge conducts a proper balancing test under MRE 403 on the record, that ruling will not be overturned by an appellate court absent a clear abuse of discretion; the ruling of a military judge who fails to do so will receive correspondingly less deference
3. where a military judge fails to conduct an MRE 403 balancing test on the record, an appellate court will examine the record itself

Miscellaneous Matters: Manual for Courts-Martial: Force and Effect

1. a rule or other provision of the MCM cannot sanction a violation of an appellant’s constitutional rights