Court Opinion

ID: 9836979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:50.214503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.644904
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the result):
I agree with the majority’s disposition of Issue I. I disagree with its disposition of Issue II.
I disagree with the characterization of this case as a credibility battle. Because appellant did not testify, his credibility was not in issue, and the evidence regarding his motive to lie was irrelevant.
Furthermore, I believe that admission of the testimony of Major McConnell concerning appellant’s motive to lie was constitutional error. Asking court members to infer that an accused is lying merely because he is an accused undermines the presumption of innocence. See generally Mahomey v. Wattman, 917 F.2d 469 (10th Cir.1990) (prosecution argument that presumption of innocence had been eliminated was constitutional error); see also United States v. Carpenter, 51 MJ 393, 397 (1999) (prosecutor “treading on dangerous ground” by commenting on exercise of constitutional rights).
In this case the prosecution introduced evidence of appellant’s statements to an OSI agent and then used expert testimony to suggest that some of those statements were false, based solely on the fact that appellant was accused of a crime. In my view, it is impermissible to use expert testimony to opine on the truthfulness of evidence. See United States v. Arruza, 26 MJ 234, 237 (CMA 1988), and cases cited therein, cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1011, 109 S.Ct. 1120, 103 L.Ed.2d 183 (1989).
I also do not believe that the defense opened the door by suggesting that the victim may have been faking his symptoms when he was seen by Maj Woods. If the defense had shown that the victim had a felony conviction, that would not open the door to evidence that the accused also had a felony conviction. In my view, there is no logical connection between a suggestion that a victim may have faked his symptoms and an assertion that an accused is lying, especially when the accused does not testify.
Finally, I do not agree that the issue was waived. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the testimony of Maj McConnell was “perpetrator evidence.” While this objection may have been inartfully phrased, it was clear to the military judge that the defense was objecting to testimony that appellant had a motive to lie merely because he was accused of a crime. For the reasons stated above, I believe that the objection was meritorious and should have been sustained.
Although I believe that the military judge erred, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the military judge’s detailed credibility instruction and the evidence of record, that the error was harmless. Accordingly, I concur in the result.