Court Opinion

ID: 9836717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:53.31368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:18.580171
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I disagree with the majority’s decision to dismiss appellant’s conviction on specification 1 of Charge I and specification 1 of Charge IV and its decision to remand for a rehearing on sentence or for a reassessment of sentence. I would affirm the lower appellate court’s decision, although I do not join its rationale on all the questions of law raised in this case.
Turning to Issue I, I would affirm the decision of the lower appellate court because, in my view, the statute of limitations in the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, now codified at 18 USC § 3283, applied to appellant’s case. See United States v. Dowty, 48 *137MJ 102,112 (1998) (Sullivan, J., concurring in part and in the result); see also H.R.Rep. No. 101-681, pt. 1, at 166 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6572 (stating an intent to bring federal practice in line with “innovative [state] procedures that have far outpaced Federal law, leaving those children who do enter the Federal system (;through military bases, Indian reservations, and from other federal lands and facilities) inadequately protected”) (emphasis added).
Regarding Issue III, I disagree with the majority opinion that the military judge did not err when he restricted the cross-examination of the victim. Mil.R.Evid. 608(b), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.), allows the defense to cross-examine an alleged victim about past false complaints of rape made against a person other than the accused, as opposed to the mere fact that a complaint of rape was made. Compare United States v. Stavely, 33 MJ 92, 94 (CMA 1991), and United States v. Bahr, 33 MJ 228, 233-34 (CMA 1991), with United States v. Velez, 48 MJ 220, 227 (1998). Nevertheless, in view of my resolution of Issue IV below, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
On Issue IV, I would hold that appellant’s statements to his wife were not protected by the husband-wife privilege because they fell within an exception to Mil.R.Evid. 504(b), i.e., the alleged victim was a de facto child. See Mil.R.Evid. 504(c)(2)(A). In doing so, I would reverse the reasoning of the lower appellate court, especially its reliance on United States v. Massey, 15 USCMA 274, 35 CMR 246 (1965). See United States v. Menchaca, 23 USCMA 67, 48 CMR 538 (1974) (holding that accused injured his wife when he sexually molested her child by a previous marriage; noting that para. 148e of the 1969 Manual for Courts-Martial (Rev. ed.) made obsolete the holding of Massey). It is a crime against the marriage for one spouse to molest the other spouse’s child, even though the alleged victim was neither a marital nor adopted child of either spouse. Here, she was covered by this exception because there was testimony that appellant’s wife was the guardian of the victim while appellant molested her. (R. at 434). See United States v. McCarty, 45 MJ 334, 336 (1996)(Sullivan, J., concurring in the result); United States v. Bahe, 128 F.3d 1440, 1446 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1033, 118 S.Ct. 1327, 140 L.Ed.2d 489 (1998); Mil.R.Evid. 504(b).
Finally, on Issue V, I would hold that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling that Dr. Morales was qualified and had an adequate basis for commenting on appellant’s lack of rehabilitative potential. (R. at 578, 581-82). There is no requirement that a psychotherapist expert personally evaluate an accused before rendering an opinion on his rehabilitative potential. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 903-04, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983); United States v. Stinson, 34 MJ 233, 239 (CMA 1992); United States v. Williams, 41 MJ 134, 138 (CMA 1994); RCM 1001(b)(5)(B) & (C), Manual, supra (1995 ed.); Mil.R.Evid. 702.