Court Opinion

ID: 9836786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:02.835096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.886438
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(dissenting):
I would affirm appellant’s conviction for indecent acts with a child because the erroneously admitted testimony of Ms. Earls was cumulative of other evidence properly admitted in this ease. See United States v. Pittman, 36 MJ 404, 408 (CMA 1993).
As I stated in my dissenting opinion in United States v. Armstrong, 53 MJ 76, 82 (2000), I do not think it appropriate to decide the harmless error issue on the basis that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of per*364suasion. In my view, the Government simply runs the risk that a conviction will be set aside if the appellate court has grave doubt whether an accused was materially prejudiced by a legal error. See O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 439, 445, 115 S.Ct. 992, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995). Under O’Neal v. McAninch, supra, I do not have any grave doubt on the material prejudice in this case. Moreover, I do not find that the erroneous admission of Ms. Earls’ testimony materially prejudiced appellant’s substantial rights to a fair trial. Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859(a).
The testimony at issue on this appeal came from Ms. Earls, a school counselor at the alleged victim’s school. She testified that sometime after the incident, the alleged victim told her that appellant sexually abused her. She testified:
I just asked her how she was and how was school, some small talk in the beginning. Then I said, “One time you told me” — oh no, I said, “Who are you living with right now?” And she said, “My mom and my little brother.” And then I said, “One time you told me your mom had boyfriends. Do you see any of them?” And she said, “No.” I said, “Have any of them ever bothered you in any way?” And she said, “No. I never see them.” Then she said, “You know what?” And then she told me — and I said, “What?” And she said, “Cuddles put his weiner in my mouth.” And I said, “Cuddles. Who’s Cuddles?” And she said, “He’s at my baby-sitter’s.” I said, “Is he a grownup or a kid?” And she said, “A grownup,” said it was at Cuddles’ and Siggy’s house. And I said, “Well tell me what happened.” And she said that they were playing hide-n-go-seek and she had a blindfold on and Cuddles took her to his bedroom and put a chocolate in her mouth and then put his weiner in her mouth.
(R. 240) (emphasis added).
Later on, Ms. Earls testified to a second statement by the alleged victim to her about appellant’s alleged sexual abuse.
Part of my purpose was to clarify who [KL] was and which baby-sitter that [EB] was talking about. [EB] had told me that it had happened at her baby-sitter’s house. And through questioning or talking with [KL] I wasn’t sure which baby-sitters they were talking about. So when I talked to [EB] again, she told me that [KL] lives at Cuddles’ and Siggy’s house. And I also asked her to tell me what happened again so I could be sure. And she basically repeated the story. She added a little more detail. She said that she — when she went into the room she felt something in her mouth. She said, “I had all that stuff in my mouth and then he put in” no, “he had chocolate in my mouth. Then I felt something else in my mouth and then he — I took the blindfold off and his weiner was in my mouth. ” She said, “I also had chocolate in the kitchen afterwards.” She said, “I told Siggy about it.” I think she said Siggy had gone to the grocery store and when Siggy got home she told Siggy and Siggy told her not to tell anyone because people could get into trouble. She said, “Siggy didn’t believe me.”
(R. 242) (emphasis added).
The record before me shows that this testimony was cumulative of other evidence presented in this case. First, the alleged victim herself testified that during a game of hide and seek, appellant gave her chocolate and then “he pulled down his pants and put his pee-pee in [her] mouth.” (R. 211). Second, the alleged victim also testified that she told her playmate, KL, appellant’s stepdaughter, right after the alleged incident the same story, and she told appellant’s wife and some unknown “big guy” that appellant had done the above acts. (R. 212). Finally, KL testified that she was playing hide and seek with appellant and the alleged victim came out of appellant’s bedroom and said “Cuddles had put a weiner in her mouth.” (R. 285).
In my view, outside of Ms. Earls’ testimony, there was ample “clear and lucid” evidence admitted in this case which established appellant’s crimes and the alleged victim’s complaints to others about them. The alleged victim’s testimony on her post-offense complaint was not contradicted by KL. It was corroborated by her testimony. *365Admission of one witness’s testimony concerning the victim’s post-offense complaint was not materially prejudicial because another witness properly testified to this same complaint. The admitted evidence was cumulative of other evidence in this case. See United States v. Pittman, supra (harmless error in admission of evidence of admissions to social worker because of other evidence of same admissions to friend and confidant). Accordingly, I would affirm this conviction of indecent acts with a child.