Professional Documents
Culture Documents
v.
Allen J. SOLOMON, Private First Class
U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant
No. 13-0025
Crim. App. No. 201100582
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued March 20, 2013
Decided May 8, 2013
STUCKY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BAKER,
C.J., ERDMANN and RYAN, JJ., and EFFRON, S.J., joined.
Counsel
For Appellant:
Contrary to his
The military
Those
he
When LCpl
He
The
3106790, at *4.
III.
This Court reviews a military judges decision to admit
evidence for an abuse of discretion.
68 M.J. 243, 248 (C.A.A.F. 2010).
United
Wright, 53
Accordingly, in conducting
Id.
10
According to
No evidence
The evidence
11
We
3106790, at *4.
Most
12
When
13
Because
On
He then
14
In rebuttal
See Berry, 61
15
Although we recognize
that the military judge would not have known when he admitted
the M.R.E. 413 evidence that trial counsel would overdo it in
this manner, the military judge failed to take actions during
trial to limit its overuse, including declining to take judicial
notice of the acquittal.
The result
was that a great deal of time was spent in a distracting minitrial on a collateral matter of low probative value, without the
ameliorative effect of judicial recognition of the acquittal via
limiting instruction or judicial notice.
Applying the appropriate deference to the ruling of a
military judge, we find that in this case the military judges
failure to address or reconcile Appellants alibi evidence or
give due weight to Appellants acquittal undermined his M.R.E.
403 balancing analysis such that the decision to admit the
evidence was an abuse of discretion.
16
When a military
17
18
A rehearing is