Court Opinion

ID: 9836630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:36.871663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.396017
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in part and in the result and dissenting in part):
Appellant was forced to defend against two separate incidents of drug dealings while only being charged with one. In my view, the discussion of the “ounce sale” on January 17,1997, should have been redacted from the tape-conversation evidence. I conclude, as I did in United States v. Matthews, 53 MJ 465, 472 (2000) (Sullivan, J., concurring in the result), that the probative value of this evidence (to show the context of a conversation) clearly was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Nevertheless, I agree that appellant’s tape-recorded admission of guilt renders this error harmless. Art. 59(a).