U.S. v. Gomez, 76 M.J. 76

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. in sentencing, the government may introduce evidence of aggravating circumstances pertaining to the medical impact on any person or entity who was the victim of an offense committed by the accused; these aggravating circumstances can include the effect of the process on the victim, and they also can encompass the harm inflicted on the victim’s family, such as a child
2. with respect to a victim of maltreatment and aggravated sexual contact by appellant who testified on sentencing about pregnancy complications caused by the crimes and the stress of the trial process, even assuming that there was clear or obvious error, appellant was not prejudiced by the admission of this testimony, where (1) the government presented a strong sentencing case in aggravation, (2) the witness’s testimony about the premature birth of her baby was not particularly aggravating, and (3) the members’ ultimate sentencing decision, which was closer to the recommendation of the defense than to that of the prosecution, indicated that they were not influenced the testimony; not only was there an insufficient basis to conclude that the witness’s testimony about her pregnancy complications substantially influenced the members’ sentencing decision, appellant failed to meet his burden under the third prong of the plain error test because he did not establish that any error that occurred regarding the admission of this testimony materially prejudiced a substantial right
3. with respect to a victim of abusive sexual contact by appellant who testified on sentencing that the stress from the trial process may have affected her pregnancy, appellant failed to met his burden under the second prong of the plain error test by not demonstrating a clear and obvious error in the admission of the testimony where the testimony was patently ambiguous; even after analyzing her testimony at length on the written page, it was difficult to discern what the witness was trying to convey; on one hand, she may have been seeking to make the point that the trial process caused her stress and this stress caused her to miscarry a twin; if so, this point would likely have been highly damaging to appellant’s sentencing case and there would have been a question as to whether there an appropriate evidentiary basis to admit such medical testimony; on the other hand, she may instead have been reporting that she had miscarried one twin due to reasons unconnected to appellant’s conduct or to the trial process, and she was worried that the stress associated with the case might harm her remaining unborn child; if she intended to convey this latter point, it was not error for the military judge to admit her testimony; accordingly, because her testimony was subject to two plausible interpretations — one of which rendered the testimony admissible — the military judge did not clearly or obviously err in admitting it

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. in order to establish prejudice from an evidentiary ruling in sentencing, appellant must demonstrate that the witness’s testimony substantially influenced the adjudged sentence; and prejudice from an erroneous evidentiary ruling is evaluated by an appellate court by weighing (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

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. where appellant did not object to the testimony of sentencing witnesses, an appellate court applies a plain error framework in addressing the admissibility of that evidence
2. for an appellant to establish plain error, he bears the burden of establishing the following three prongs: (1) there was error; (2) the error was clear or obvious; and (3) the error materially prejudiced a substantial right; as all three prongs must be satisfied, the failure to establish any one of the prongs is fatal to a plain error claim

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

1. where appellant did not object to the testimony of sentencing witnesses, an appellate court applies a plain error framework in addressing the admissibility of that evidence
2. for an appellant to establish plain error, he bears the burden of establishing the following three prongs: (1) there was error; (2) the error was clear or obvious; and (3) the error materially prejudiced a substantial right; as all three prongs must be satisfied, the failure to establish any one of the prongs is fatal to a plain error claim