Court Opinion

ID: 9836876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:19.872873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.133414
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I completely agree with my learned Brother’s opinion except for the part where he attempts to distinguish this case from United States v. Graham, 50 MJ 56 (1999). Save for some damaging admissions by Roberts prior to trial, this case is, in fact, very similar to Graham. Contrary to the majority’s implication, the existence of the prior use of the innocent-ingestion defense did come out in a rebuttal mode. The evidence at issue surfaced during the cross-examination of Roberts after he raised the innocent-ingestion defense to the present charge. Confronting-the assertions of a criminal defendant with impeaching facts from his past is perhaps the most personal and direct form of rebuttal. In this respect, my dissenting opinion from Graham does appear to me to be relevant. Nevertheless, I can also join in the affir-mance of this case based on other circumstances outlined by the majority. Accordingly, I am willing to join their affirmance of this case on the theory that if this evidence was error, it was harmless in this case.