U.S. v. Campos, 85 M.J. 310

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. an abuse of discretion occurs when a military judge (1) bases a ruling on findings of fact that are not supported by the evidence, (2) uses incorrect legal principles, (3) applies correct legal principles in a clearly unreasonable way, or (4) does not consider important facts
2. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion by considering the victim's accusations of uncharged misconduct against appellant in her unsworn statement where those accusations addressed neither the offenses of which appellant was found guilty nor the impact of those offenses; such accusations of uncharged conduct were not "victim impact" within the meaning of RCM 1001(c)(2)(B), and including these accusations in the unsworn statement violated RCM 1001(c)(3)

Military Justice Personnel: Victim: Generally

1. RCM 1001(c) governs a victim's unsworn statement, and in this case, three parts of this rule are pertinent: (1) the crime victim may make an unsworn statement and may not be cross-examined by trial counsel or defense counsel, or examined upon it by the court-martial, (2) the content of statements may only include victim impact and matters in mitigation, and (3) victim impact includes any financial, social, psychological, or medical impact on the crime victim directly relating to or arising from the offense of which the accused has been found guilty
2. the definition of "victim impact" in RCM 1001(c)(2)(B) includes two distinct elements: the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty and the impact of those offenses on the victim; both elements must be satisfied
3. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion by considering the victim's accusations of uncharged misconduct against appellant in her unsworn statement where those accusations addressed neither the offenses of which appellant was found guilty nor the impact of those offenses; such accusations of uncharged conduct were not "victim impact" within the meaning of RCM 1001(c)(2)(B), and including these accusations in the unsworn statement violated RCM 1001(c)(3)
4. the description of appellant's uncharged misconduct in a victim's unsworn statement that appears to be relevant only to understanding appellant's character is not "victim impact" as defined in RCM 1001(c)(2)(B)
5. evidence in aggravation is different from a victim's unsworn statement under RCM 1001(c) in significant ways; aggravation evidence is subject to the MREs, which means that a witness who provides such evidence must testify under oath and be subjected to cross-examination; in addition, the military judge must test the evidence for unfair prejudice under MRE 403

Military Justice Personnel: Victim: Evidence

1. unsworn statements are not evidence

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Evidence

1. evidence in aggravation is different from a victim's unsworn statement under RCM 1001(c) in significant ways; aggravation evidence is subject to the MREs, which means that a witness who provides such evidence must testify under oath and be subjected to cross-examination; in addition, the military judge must test the evidence for unfair prejudice under MRE 403

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. when a military judge has abused his discretion in rejecting objections to a victim's unsworn statement, an appellate court will grant relief only if the court is persuaded that the improper portion of the victim impact statement substantially influenced the adjudged sentence; in determining whether improperly admitted evidence substantially influenced a sentence, the 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; although unsworn statements are not evidence, the court has applied the same factors in considering whether improper aspects of unsworn statements caused prejudice
2. in this case, although the military judge abused his discretion by considering the victim's accusations of uncharged misconduct against appellant in her unsworn statement, the error did not substantially influence the sentence where (1) the materiality of the accusations was low because they added little to the more egregious violent conduct of which appellant pleaded guilty, and (2) the quality of the accusations was low because the accusations were not sworn, were not tested by cross-examination, were very brief, and contained little or no detail about the harm they may have caused

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

1. the meaning of RCM 1001 concerning presentencing procedure is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo
2. an appellate court reviews a military judge's ruling on an objection to a victim's unsworn statement for an abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs when a military judge (1) bases a ruling on findings of fact that are not supported by the evidence, (2) uses incorrect legal principles, (3) applies correct legal principles in a clearly unreasonable way, or (4) does not consider important facts
3. when a military judge has abused his discretion in rejecting objections to a victim's unsworn statement, an appellate court will grant relief only if the court is persuaded that the improper portion of the victim impact statement substantially influenced the adjudged sentence; in determining whether improperly admitted evidence substantially influenced a sentence, the 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; although unsworn statements are not evidence, the court has applied the same factors in considering whether improper aspects of unsworn statements caused prejudice