Court Opinion

ID: 9836825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:10.367596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.005418
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
On Issue I (that the court below used “the wrong standard for factual sufficiency of the evidence in affirming appellant’s conviction”), I would accept the Government’s concession of error. The Government concession on Issue I was that the lower court erred, and this case should be remanded by our Court to the lower court to follow United States v. *178Martinez, 50 MJ 344 (1998)(summary disposition).
On Issue II, involving the exclusion of an excited utterance by the military judge, I agree with the majority that testing for “material prejudice to substantial rights” requires analysis of the impact of the error on the outcome of the case. See United States v. Armstrong, 53 MJ 76, 82 (2000) (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Nevertheless, I disagree with the majority analysis of the record in this case and would hold that the judge’s error was harmless. Article 59(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 859(a). This was not constitutional error. Appellant’s defense, based on the victim’s consent, was adequately presented to the members through the admission of his pretrial statement to military criminal investigators. See United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 317, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 1269, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (significant impairment standard for constitutional violation). While noneonstitutional error occurred in this case under Mil. R. Evid. 803(2), I am persuaded that such error did not substantially impact the findings of guilty in this case. See United States v. Adams, 44 MJ 251, 252 (1996).
This was a contested rape case. The victim’s testimony accusing appellant of rape was pitted against his written pretrial statement (Prosecution Exhibit 2) asserting consent, evidence of good military character, and an attack on the credibility of the alleged victim’s testimony. The excluded testimony that appellant said “you grabbed me first” to the victim after she accused him of rape immediately after the alleged incident is cumulative evidence already before the court (his written account of the incident given to military investigators later that same day). Moreover, comparing the written pretrial statement of appellant and Airman Sullivan’s testimony (R. at 133, 139), there was no possibility in this case that the members could find appellant was admitting the truth of the alleged victim’s allegation when he threw up his hands and said “call the cops.” Finally, the fact that the victim may have grabbed appellant first is no defense to a rape charge, and such a statement by appellant might even be construed as an implicit admission by him that her accusation was true. Accordingly, I find that if the judge erred in excluding appellant’s statement “you grabbed me first,” the error was harmless.
In summary, I accept the Government’s concession and I would remand this case to the Court of Criminal Appeals in accordance with United States v. Martinez, supra.