Court Opinion

ID: 9836742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:56.02806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.711537
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge
(concurring in the result):
I agree that the burden is on appellant to establish plain error.
In Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718, the Court stated:
[B]efore an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) “error,” (2) that is “plain,” and (3) that “affeet[s] substantial rights.” 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. at 1776. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error “ ‘ “seriously affects[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” ’ ”
*66I see no difference between an error that “materially prejudices ... substantial rights” under Article 59(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 859(a), or an error that “affect[s] substantial rights” under Fed. R.Crim.P. 52(b). As the Court in Johnson indicated, an appellate court may “notice a forfeited error.” A finding or sentence “may not be held incorrect” “unless the error materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.” Thus, both prong four of Johnson and Article 59(a) instruct appellate courts as to when they may set aside the findings and sentence. The appellate court then analyzes whether the error was harmless. That is, it is possible to have an error that “materially prejudices ... substantial rights,” such as a constitutional violation, ie., a confession obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment, but still affirm the conviction. I view the application of these four prongs to be the same, whether employed by a court of discretionary appeal or a court with mandatory review.
Thus, although Rule 52(b) does not directly apply to military courts-martial procedures, its import and purpose are encompassed by Mil.R.Evid. 103(d), which, along with Article 59(a), provides the same limitation on review of harmless error that is provided by the Olano/Johnson analysis. To put it simply, even if there is a clear or obvious error at trial, if that error does not materially prejudice a substantial right (i.e., seriously affect the fairness of the trial), this Court need not take corrective action.
United States v. Boyd, 52 MJ 758, 763 (A.F.Ct.Crim.App.2000).
For these reasons, I concur in the result.