Court Opinion

ID: 9836766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:00.029894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.828638
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in the result):
I agree that the lower appellate court’s decision should be affirmed. However, I have some difficulty with the majority’s joint treatment of the distinct legal issues in this case. I prefer a more direct analysis of the issues.
With respect to Issue I, I find no error because the evidence was properly admitted under Mil.R.Evid. 404(b) and because the probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudice under Mil.R.Evid. 403. See United States v. Smith, 52 MJ 337 (2000); see generally E. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence § 2:05 (1999). With respect to Issue II, I find no error in admitting proof of an uncharged conspiracy. See United States v. Edmond, 924 F.2d 261, 269 (D.C.Cir.1991). With respect to Issue III, I also find no error in admitting evidence that appellant threatened prosecution witnesses. See, e.g., United States v. Monahan, 633 F.2d 984, 985 (1st Cir.1980); United States v. Gonzalez, 703 F.2d 1222, 1223 (11th Cir.1983); United States v. Hayden, 85 F.3d 153, 159 (4th Cir. 1996). Regarding Issue TV, I would hold that the military judge erred in excluding this testimony under Mil.R.Evid. 403, but such error did not rise to the level of constitutional error nor did it otherwise prejudice his substantial rights in a material way. Cf. United States v. Lewis, 51 MJ 376, 383 (1999).