U.S. v. Steen, 81 M.J. 261

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Relevance

1. materiality is a common law term that has been merged with the concept of relevance under the Military Rules of Evidence; the term materiality refers to a fact that is of consequence in determining the action

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. in assessing whether a nonconstitutional error by a military judge in admitting propensity evidence in violation of MRE 404(b) had a substantial influence on the members’ verdict in the context of the entire case, an appellate court considers four factors: (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; in this regard, when a fact was already obvious from testimony at trial and the evidence in question would not have provided any new ammunition, an error is likely to be harmless; conversely, where the evidence doesprovide new ammunition, an error is less likely to be harmless
2. the government bears the burden of showing that any nonconstitutional error by a military judge in admitting propensity evidence in violation of MRE 404(b) was harmless
3. in this case, a military judge’s error in admitting propensity evidence in violation of MRE 404(b) was prejudicial where (1) the prosecution’s case was fairly weak where it turned on the testimony of a witness who had significant credibility issues, (2) the fact that appellant texted a friend a few days after the charged offense in an effort to obtain some marijuana was not of consequence in determining whether he distributed marijuana to a shipmate, and (3) this was clearly a case where the improper evidence produced new ammunition for the prosecution, significantly strengthened the prosecution’s case, and completely undermined appellant’s theory of the case; where the determining factor in the case was the relative credibility of a witness with transactional immunity and a favorable deal, inadmissible evidence that damaged the accused’s credibility and invited the members to assume facts not in evidence created a high bar for the government to show that the admission was harmless, and the government did not meet that bar here

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

1. an appellate court reviews de novo the question whether a nonconstitutional error by a military judge in admitting propensity evidence in violation of MRE 404(b) had a substantial influence on the members’ verdict in the context of the entire case
2. in assessing whether a nonconstitutional error by a military judge in admitting propensity evidence in violation of MRE 404(b) had a substantial influence on the members’ verdict in the context of the entire case, an appellate court considers four factors: (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; in this regard, when a fact was already obvious from testimony at trial and the evidence in question would not have provided any new ammunition, an error is likely to be harmless; conversely, where the evidence doesprovide new ammunition, an error is less likely to be harmless
3. the government bears the burden of showing that any nonconstitutional error by a military judge in admitting propensity evidence in violation of MRE 404(b) was harmless
4. an appellate court presumes that court-martial members follow a military judge’s instructions