Court Opinion

ID: 9836697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:51.367623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:31.079378
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Judge
(concurring):
Issue IV gives me pause, for many of the reasons set out by my learned colleague, Judge Effron. The analysis set forth in Judge Effron’s opinion that bears on the issue of whether the second prong of Reynolds is met also bears on the balancing test under Mil.R.Evid. 403. The time lapse and the lack of similarity of the prior conduct addressed by Judge Effron tend to diminish the probative value of the evidence in question. On the other side of the scale, the prejudicial effect of the evidence regarding the prior acts with J was very high.
Had I been the military judge, I am not sure that I would have admitted the evidence. Nevertheless, I recognize that this is an area where a military judge has broad discretion. This case presented the military judge with a close judgment call, and appellant has not persuaded me that the military judge’s ruling was a “clear abuse of discretion.” United States v. Manns, 54 MJ 164, 166 (2000). Therefore, I concur.