Court Opinion

ID: 9836758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:58.372858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.776509
License: Public Domain

*464GIERKE, Judge
(concurring in the result):
There are two separate issues of standing involved in this ease. The first issue pertains to appellant’s standing to assert a violation of his wife’s rights. The second issue pertains to appellant’s standing to assert that the illegal subpoena adversely affected the reliability of the evidence or fairness of his trial. In my view, appellant’s lack of standing with respect to the first issue does not deprive him of standing with respect to the second issue. See United States v. Golston, 53 MJ 61, 64 n. 1 (2000).
In any event, we need not decide whether the military judge should have suppressed Mrs. Johnson’s Article 32 testimony, for two reasons: (1) the issue is moot, and (2) it was waived. The issue is moot because Mrs. Johnson’s Article 32 testimony was never admitted as a prosecution exhibit. See United States v. Napoleon, 46 MJ 279, 281, cert. denied, 522 U.S. 953, 118 S.Ct. 375, 139 L.Ed.2d 292 (1997). The issue was waived because Mrs. Johnson’s Article 32 testimony was used only to refresh her recollection and to impeach her, and defense counsel did not object to use of the Article 32 testimony for these purposes. See Mil.R.Evid. 103(a), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.).* Because the Article 32 testimony was cumulative to other impeachment evidence, such as Mrs. Johnson’s two statements to the CID, I am satisfied that there was no plain error. See Mil.R.Evid. 103(d); United States v. Powell, 49 MJ 460 (1998).

The 1998 version of cited provisions is unchanged.