Court Opinion

ID: 9836706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:52.329279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:12.057876
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring with a reservation):
Naturally, I completely agree with the majority’s core holding in this opinion — that the unsworn statement of appellant, specifically:
I have tried throughout my life, even during childhood, to stay within the laws and regulations of this country. [Emphasis added.]
opened the door to rebuttal by the prosecution. I agree because this was my exact position in United States v. Cleveland, 29 MJ 361, 364 (CMA 1990) (Sullivan, J., dissenting), where in my view, the appellant opened the door to rebuttal by his unsworn statement, specifically:
I feel that I have served [my country] well. [Emphasis added.]
My only reservation is in the dicta portion of the present opinion. I cannot accept the majority’s attempt to explain the different result in the majority holding in Cleveland (door not opened for rebuttal) and in the present case (door opened for rebuttal). This semantic contortion I do not accept. According to the majority, when someone says, “I feel I have served well,” — that is an opinion which would not allow rebuttal. But when someone says, “I have tried to stay within the law,” — that is a statement of fact which would allow rebuttal. Well, I think a reasonable person would hold that both statements (i.e., “I feel” and “I have tried”) say the same thing. In my view, both statements properly opened the door for the prosecution to give rebuttal evidence during the sentencing portion of these cases. United States v. Cleveland, supra at 364 (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Other than this minor reservation, I concur in affirming this conviction.