U.S. v. Ramos, 76 M.J. 372

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. on a mixed question of law and fact, a military judge abuses his discretion if his findings of fact are clearly erroneous or his conclusions of law are incorrect
2. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion in concluding that law enforcement agents, who interviewed appellant about threats that he and his wife had allegedly received from his wife’s partner in a state-authorized marijuana growing business, were not conducting a law enforcement investigation, but were instead focused on force protection, where under a totality of the circumstances, the agents suspected appellant of a UCMJ violation for his involvement with marijuana, but intentionally declined to advise him of his rights in order to continue to talk to him; because the agents suspected that appellant had committed an offense under the UCMJ, he was entitled to be advised of his Article 31(b) rights

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 107 - False Official Statements Pre-2019 offenses

1. the express language of Article 31 does not permit a false official statement offense to be based upon an erroneously unwarned statement

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Article 31

1. Article 31(b), UCMJ, warning rights are required when (1) a person subject to the UCMJ, (2) interrogates or requests any statement, (3) from an accused or person suspected of an offense, and (4) the statements regard the offense of which the person questioned is accused or suspected; and Article 31(d) states that no statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial
2. generally, an accused must be informed of his Miranda (384 US 436 (1966)) rights prior to custodial interrogation; in military jurisprudence, Congress has provided military members, under Article 31(b), with a rights’ warning requirement that is broader than those required by Miranda; Article 31(b), UCMJ, states that an accused may not be interrogated or requested to make a statement if that person is suspected of committing an offense without first informing the accused of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial
3. under Article 31(b)’s second requirement, rights warnings are required if the person conducting the questioning is participating in an official law enforcement or disciplinary investigation or inquiry, which is determined by assessing all the facts and circumstances at the time of the interview to determine whether the military questioner was acting or could reasonably be considered to be acting in an official law-enforcement or disciplinary capacity; in interpreting Article 31(b), this court has recognized the difference between questioning focused solely on the accomplishment of an operational mission and questioning to elicit information for use in disciplinary proceedings; however, where there is a mixed purpose behind the questioning, the matter must be resolved on a case-by-case basis, looking at the totality of the circumstances, including whether the questioning was designed to evade the accused’s constitutional or codal rights
4. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion in concluding that law enforcement agents, who interviewed appellant about threats that he and his wife had allegedly received from his wife’s partner in a state-authorized marijuana growing business, were not conducting a law enforcement investigation, but were instead focused on force protection, where under a totality of the circumstances, the agents suspected appellant of a UCMJ violation for his involvement with marijuana, but intentionally declined to advise him of his rights in order to continue to talk to him; because the agents suspected that appellant had committed an offense under the UCMJ, he was entitled to be advised of his Article 31(b) rights
5. situations that involve an operational context may relieve law enforcement from giving Article 31(b) rights where immediate operational issues are implicated
6. under the facts of this case, the questions asked of appellant by the law enforcement agents were asked pursuant to an official law-enforcement investigation and not asked under circumstances that would warrant application of the operational exigency exception to providing Article 31(b) warnings, where appellant was questioned while he was seeking the protection of law enforcement from what he perceived to be a threat to himself and his wife and the agents perceived no immediate threat to the base; simply put, there was no immediate operational necessity that required the agents to forgo the Article 31(b) warnings
7. the express language of Article 31 does not permit a false official statement offense to be based upon an erroneously unwarned statement

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. when an Article 31(b), UCMJ, violation occurs in a particular case, the appropriate test for prejudice depends upon the facts and circumstances presented
2. in this case, when appellant’s unwarned statements were the sole predicate of his Article 107 conviction, the use of his unwarned statements prejudiced his substantial rights and the specification must be dismissed

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

1. on a motion to suppress, an appellate court reviews a military judge’s ruling for an abuse of discretion
2. the abuse of discretion standard is a strict one, calling for more than a mere difference of opinion
3. in deciding whether a judge abused his discretion in denying a motion to suppress a statement on the ground that rights’ warnings were not given, an appellate court reviews the military judge’s findings of fact on a clearly-erroneous standard, and it reviews conclusions of law de novo
4. on a mixed question of law and fact, a military judge abuses his discretion if his findings of fact are clearly erroneous or his conclusions of law are incorrect
5. when an Article 31(b), UCMJ, violation occurs in a particular case, the appropriate test for prejudice depends upon the facts and circumstances presented