U.S. v. Carpenter, 77 M.J. 285

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. when reviewing a military judge’s ruling on whether to exclude evidence pursuant to MRE 412 for an abuse of discretion, the CAAF pierces the CCA’s opinion and examine the military judge’s ruling directly
2. in this case, in the context of the argument made by trial defense counsel in a motion in limine at trial, the trial judge’s decision to exclude evidence pursuant to MRE 412 was not clearly erroneous where trial defense counsel sought to present evidence of the victim’s sexual encounters with other adult men to show that the victim had knowledge of sexual activity beyond her years but where he did not argue that the evidence would be used to support the objective prong of appellant’s mistake of fact defense; the defense argument made at trial was not the same one made on appeal, and an appellate court’s review for error is based on the trial judge’s disposition of the motion submitted to him and not on a motion that appellate defense counsel now wishes trial defense counsel had submitted at trial

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Sexual Assault and Child Molestation

1. MRE 412 states that evidence offered by the accused to prove the alleged victim’s sexual predispositions, or that he engaged in other sexual behavior, is inadmissible except in limited contexts; the rule is intended to shield victims of sexual assaults from the often embarrassing and degrading cross-examination and evidence presentations common to sexual offense prosecutions

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. when reviewing a military judge’s ruling on whether to exclude evidence pursuant to MRE 412 for an abuse of discretion, the CAAF pierces the CCA’s opinion and examine the military judge’s ruling directly

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

1. when reviewing a military judge’s ruling on whether to exclude evidence pursuant to MRE 412 for an abuse of discretion, the CAAF pierces the CCA’s opinion and examine the military judge’s ruling directly
2. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s ruling on whether to exclude evidence pursuant to MRE 412 for an abuse of discretion, and this is a stringent standard of review
3. an appellate court’s review of a military judge’s ruling on whether to exclude evidence pursuant to MRE 412 is properly based on a military judge’s disposition of the motion submitted to him or her and not on the motion that appellate defense counsel later wishes trial defense counsel had submitted