Court Opinion

ID: 9900237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:03:22.98089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:02.576460
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                                      Before
                        BROOKHART, 1 PENLAND, and MORRIS
                             Appellate Military Judges

                           UNITED STATES, Appellee
                                       v.
                    Specialist JORGE G. MARTINEZCOLON
                         United States Army, Appellant

                                 ARMY 20210071

                      Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood
                          Scott Z. Hughes, Military Judge
                 Colonel David E. Mendelson, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: William E. Cassara, Esquire (argued); Major Christian E. DeLuke,
JA; William E. Cassara, Esquire (on brief); Captain Tumentugs A. Armstrong, JA;
William E. Cassara, Esquire ( on reply brief).

For Appellee: Captain Cynthia A. Hunter, JA (argued); Colonel Christopher B.
Burgess, JA; Major Mark A. Robinson, JA; Captain Cynthia A. Hunter, JA (on
brief).

                                    16 June 2023

                              OPINION OF THE COURT

PENLAND, Judge:

       The military judge convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of five
specifications of sexual assault, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of
Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920 [UCMJ]. The military judge conditionally
dismissed Specification 1 of Charge II as an unreasonable multiplication of charges.

1 Senior Judge BROOKHART took final action in this case prior to his retirement.
MAR TINEZCOLON-ARMY 20210071

Appellant was sentenced to confinement for four years, 2 reduction to E-1, and a
dishonorable discharge.

      Appellant alleges the military judge delivered an ambiguous guilty verdict for
one of the specifications. He also alleges the military judge erred in allowing the
government to present certain evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 413. Both issues
warrant brief discussion; only the first warrants relief.

                              LAW AND DISCUSSION

                            A. Ambiguous Guilty Verdict

       In Specification 1 of Charge I, the government alleged appellant sexually
assaulted (b) (6) "at or near Killeen, Texas, on one or more occasion [sic], between on
or about 1 March 2019 and on or about 30 June 2019[.]" (b) (6) trial testimony was
vague, but she did indicate that appellant sexually assaulted her more than once at
the place and time alleged. When he announced his findings, the military judge said
of this specification: "Guilty, except the words 'or more' [-] of the excepted words
not guilty."

       This finding was ambiguous, containing words of conviction ("guilty") and of
acquittal ("not guilty"), and squarely presenting us with the problem our superior
court addressed in United States v. Walters. 58 M.J. 391, 395-396 (C.A.A.F. 2003).
The military judge did not specify which of the multiple incidents formed the basis
for his guilty finding. And, on the other hand, he did not specify which of them
formed the basis for his not guilty finding. Unlike the facts in United States v.
Pasay, ARMY 20140930, 2017 CCA LEXIS 268 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 19 April
2017), this record does not contain legally sufficient proof of only one particular
incident. As a result, we are far from certain of the factual predicate that we must
review for legal and factual sufficiency, and we are equally unsure how to avoid the
risk of mistakenly affirming a guilty finding for alleged conduct that resulted in
acquittal. Article 66( d)(l ), UCMJ. Unable to reliably review the findings for the
affected specification, we grant relief in our decretal paragraph.

                          B. Military Rule of Evidence 413

      Military Rule of Evidence 413 is a rule of inclusion. United States v. Parker,
2005 CCA LEXIS 340, at * 11 (A.F. Cr. Crim. App. 18 Oct. 2005); United States v.

2The military judge sentenced appellant to one year of confinement-each to be
served consecutively-for each of the remaining four specifications.

                                           2
MARTINEZCOLON-ARMY 20210071

Wilson, 2018 CCA LEXIS 451, at *23 n. 41 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. 20 September
2018).

       It is well-settled that we review a military judge's decision whether to admit
evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Solomon, 72 M.J. 176, 179
(C.A.A.F. 2013); United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350, 354 (C.A.A.F. 2016); United
States v. Upshaw, 81 M.J. 71, 74 (C.A.A.F. 2021). However, we address this topic
to establish an additional principle regarding the scope of a military judge's
consideration in deciding whether proffered Mil. R. Evid. 413 evidence is
admissible. Before trial, the government sought permission to offer evidence of an
uncharged sexual offense that appellant committed against SP. In a thorough ruling
that was well within the bounds of reasonable discretion, the military judge allowed
the evidence. On appeal, the parties seem to suggest in their briefs that, in making
this interlocutory decision, the military judge should have considered SP' s
credibility. This issue prompts the precedential nature of our decision.

       In United States v. Huddleston, 485 U.S. 681, 682 (1988), the Supreme Court
of the United States (SCOTUS) considered a comparable issue concerning evidence
under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Analyzing the trial court's role concerning
the preliminary question of admissibility, the SCOTUS stated:

             [P]etitioner's reading of Rule 404(b) as mandating a preliminary
             finding by the trial court that the act in question occurred not
             only superimposes a level of judicial oversight that is nowhere
             apparent from the language of that provision, but it is simply
             inconsistent with the legislative history behind Rule 404(b) ...
             the Committee indicated that the trial court should assess such
             evidence under the usual rules for admissibility.

Id. at 688. The SCOTUS highlighted that "the usual rules for admissibility" in the
context of limits on Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), are "subject only to general
strictures limiting admissibility such as Rule 402 and 403." Id. The Court further
observed, "Congress was not nearly so concerned with the potential prejudicial
effect of Rule 404(b) evidence as it was with ensuring that restrictions would not be
placed on the admission of such evidence." Id. at 688-89. Like SCOTUS and
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
(CAAF) has explained how a trial judge should assess evidence offered under Mil.
R. Evid. 413:

             [t]here are three threshold requirements for admitting evidence
             of similar offenses in sexual assault cases under Mil. R. Evid.
             413 are: (1) the accused must be charged with an offense of
             sexual assault; (2) the proffered evidence must be evidence of
             the accused's commission of another offense of sexual assault;

                                          3
MAR TINEZCOLON-ARMY 20210071

             and (3) the evidence must be relevant under [Mil. R. Evid.] 401
             and [Mil. R. Evid.] 402.

United States v. Solomon, 72 M.J. 176, 179 (C.A.A.F. 2013). The threshold
relevance requirement echoes the admissibility requirements of both Federal Rule of
Evidence 404(b) and the corresponding Mil. R. Evid. 404(b). See United States v.
Diaz, 59 M.J. 79, 93 ('" As the Supreme Court stated when speaking of Mil. R. Evid.
404(b )' s counterpart, Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) ... ' the proffered evidence must meet the
standards of [Mil. R. Evid.] 104(b ), 402, and 403. ") ( quoting United States v.
Humpherys, 57 M.J. 83, 90-91 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (cleaned up). The preliminary
question of relevance under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and Mil. R. Evid.
404(b) is "dealt with under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b)." Huddleston, 485 U.S.
at 689. Central to our decision today,

             [i]n determining whether the Government has introduced
             sufficient evidence to meet Rule 104(b ), the trial court neither
             weighs credibility nor makes a finding that the Government has
             proved the conditional fact by a preponderance of the evidence.
             The court simply examines all the evidence in the case and
             decides whether the jury could reasonably find the conditional
             fact ... by a preponderance of the evidence.

Id. at 690. It is well established that "Military Rule of Evidence 104 is based on the
corresponding Federal Rule of Evidence." United States v. Davis, 65 M.J. 766, 770
n. 4 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 28 Sep. 2007); See Manual for Courts-Martial, United
States (2016 ed.), Mil. R. Evid. 104 analysis at A22-3 ("Rule 104(a) is taken from
the Federal Rule" and "Rule 104(b) is taken from the Federal Rule, with additional
language: "A ruling on the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of fulfillment
of a conditional fact is the sole responsibility of the military judge.").

       Today, we echo this principle in the context of Mil. R. Evid. 413; another
panel of our colleagues have already done so in a nonbinding memorandum opinion:
"All that is required is for the court to examine the evidence and decide 'whether the
jury could reasonably find the conditional fact ... by a preponderance of the
evidence."' United States v. Deless, ARMY MISC 20220317, 2022 CCA LEXIS
637, at *15 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2 November 2022) (quoting Huddleston, 485 U.S.
at 685). In addressing this preliminary question, we hold a military judge may not
consider witness credibility in deciding whether associated Mil. R. Evid. 413
evidence is admissible. 3

3 Our superior court considered a comparable issue in United States v.
                                                                     Banker, 60
M.J. 216, 224 (C.A.A.F. 2004), concluding that a military judge may not consider

                                                                         (continued ... )

                                          4
MAR TINEZCOLON-ARMY 20210071

                                   CONCLUSION

       The finding of guilty regarding Specification 1 of Charge I is SET ASIDE,
and the associated specification is DISMISSED. The remaining findings of guilty
are AFFIRMED. Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for three
years, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge is approved. All rights,
privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of the
findings and sentence set aside by this decision are ordered restored. See UCMJ
arts. 58b(c) and 75(a).

       Senior Judge BROOKHART and Judge MORRIS concur.

                                           FOR THE COURT:

                                                 (b) (6)
                                           Clerk of Court

( ... continued)
witness credibility in deciding whether to admit evidence offered pursuant to Mil. R.
Evid. 412. Just as this principle applies to an evidentiary rule of exclusion, it is
logical and fitting to apply it to a rule of inclusion.

                                          5