Court Opinion

ID: 9837007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:58.281052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.747705
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Judge
(dissenting in part, concurring in part, and concurring in the result):
With respect to Issue I, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that defense eoun-*406sel’s failure to make a specific reference to Mil.R.Evid. 403 waived any error in the admission of Dr. Byrnes’ testimony. In United States v. Harris, 46 MJ 221, 225 (1997), this Court held that a hearsay objection was sufficient to avoid forfeiture of a Mil.R.Evid. 403 issue. In my view, the defense objection that Dr. Byrnes’ testimony was not relevant was sufficient to preserve the issue whether it had sufficient relevance to satisfy Mil.R.Evid. 403. Furthermore, because the military judge failed to set out his reasons for determining that the probative value of Dr. Byrnes’ testimony outweighed its prejudicial impact, his ruling is not entitled to the deference normally accorded to a judge’s rulings under Mil.R.Evid. 403. Id.
In my view, the military judge erred by admitting Dr. Byrnes’ testimony. The victim testified that the dormitory manager, Chris, with whom she had an ongoing sexual relationship, invited her to a party in the dormitory room of his friend, Shayne. She testified that she consumed three or four wine coolers during a period of about an hour and a half, and that Chris spiked her last drink with Jim Beam bourbon. She testified that she became so intoxicated that she had difficulty standing, and that she argued with Chris after consuming the spiked drink, because he would not give her a “straight answer” whether he was married. Appellant helped her back to her dormitory room, where she fell asleep on the sofa. She testified that, sometime later, appellant moved her onto the bed, undressed her, and had intercourse with her. While appellant was on top of her, she heard Chris and Shayne outside her room, and she called out to Chris. Chris and Shayne tried to push open the door, but appellant held it closed. Chris returned to his room, but Shayne pushed the door open and told appellant to leave. After appellant left, the victim told Shayne that she had been raped, but that she did not intend to report it because she was “drinking under age.” She testified that Shayne departed and she went to sleep.
The victim testified further that, at about 2:00 or 2:30 a.m., Chris and two other men came to her room, where Chris accused her of “f — ing Rodney [appellant].” She testified that she had not seen the other two men before. Finally, she testified that Chris hit her in the ribs and threw her onto the bed, and that all three men gang raped her.
Based on this testimony, Dr. Byrnes’ testimony was not relevant to the victim’s failure to report appellant’s conduct. The evidence of record reflects that Chris and his two friends were the primary source of her trauma. According to her own testimony, her failure to report appellant’s misconduct was due to her reluctance to report that she had been drinking alcohol at a party when she was underage, not that she was traumatized. In my view, the prejudicial impact of blaming appellant for the emotional distress inflicted by Chris and his friends outweighed the minimal probative value of the evidence.
I agree with the majority, however, that admission of the testimony was harmless error, in light of the other evidence that was properly admitted and the military judge’s limiting instructions.
With respect to Issue II, I agree with the majority that the military judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to allow the defense to “smuggle” in the opinions of Drs. Cheevers and Nelson. See United States v. Harris, supra.