U.S. v. Parino-Ramcharan, 84 M.J. 445

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in this case, the military judge did not abuse her discretion in denying appellant's motion to suppress his statement to the police that he had used LSD where (1) the judge's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, (2) the judge did not apply the requirement for corroboration of a confession under MRE 304(c) in an unreasonable manner when she concluded that the circumstantial evidence met the low threshold for corroboration, and (3) the judge did not abuse her discretion in testing the evidence under MRE 403

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. in this case, the CCA had jurisdiction over appellant's appeal under Article 69(d), UCMJ

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

1. in this case, the CAAF had jurisdiction to consider appellant's petition under Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ

Trial Stages: Appeals: Review by Judge Advocate General

1. the initial review of appellant's general court-martial conviction by a judge advocate under Article 65(d), UCMJ, was proper where he was not eligible for direct appeal under Article 66(b), UCMJ, because he had not received a sentence of confinement exceeding six months a dismissal
2. the Judge Advocate General had authority to review and act on appellant's case under Article 69(a) and (c)(1)(A), UCMJ, where Article 69(c)(1)(A), UCMJ, contained a simple scrivener's error, a mistake made by someone unfamiliar with the law's object and design; Article 69(c)(1)(A), UCMJ, should be read as if the references to "section 865(b)" and "article . . . 65(b)" are references to "section 865(d)" and "article . . . 65(d)"; accordingly, upon application by appellant, the Judge Advocate General had authority to review appellant's general court-martial conviction for wrongful use of a controlled substance where his conviction had been reviewed by a judge advocate because it was not eligible for direct review for not having a sentence of confinement exceeding six months or a dismissal

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

1. an appellate court determines questions of statutory jurisdiction de novo
2. an appellate court reviews a military judge's decision on whether to admit or suppress an admission under MRE 304(c) for an abuse of discretion