Court Opinion

ID: 8650794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 20:25:37.013481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:31.735011
License: Public Domain

COX, Judge
(concurring):
Notwithstanding the fact that the military judge’s rulings successfully boxed the defense into a stipulation of fact, in this particular case the “facts” of the reprimand and of a bar to reenlistment were unduly prejudicial. Mil.R.Evid. 403, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984. Had this appellant been tried by military judge alone, perhaps I would feel differently. See United States v. Kinman, 25 MJ 99, 103-04 (CMA 1987) (Cox, J., dissenting).