Professional Documents
Culture Documents
v.
Anthony T. YOUNG, Corporal
U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant
No. 00-0279
Crim. App. No. 98-0505
T. G. Hess
Appeals affirmed.
This Court granted review of the following issue:
WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADMISSION
OF A TAPED CONVERSATION BETWEEN APPELLANT AND A COOPERATING
WITNESS OCCURRING 23 DAYS AFTER THE CHARGED CONSPIRACY,
INCLUDING WHAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS THE PLANNING OF A
FUTURE DRUG TRANSACTION, WAS PROPER TO SHOW APPELLANTS
INTENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PRIOR CHARGED CONSPIRACY, WHERE
THAT PORTION OF THE CONVERSATION CONSTITUTED EVIDENCE OF
UNCHARGED MISCONDUCT.
For the reasons set out below, we affirm.
Factual Background
On December 26, 1997, Private Frank Smith asked appellant if
he could store some marijuana at appellants off-base apartment,
and appellant agreed.
Unbeknownst
Smith agreed
to return to the base later that night and sell some marijuana to
Berrian.
marijuana and split the money, and Smiths act of selling the
marijuana to Berrian, were the factual basis for the charges
against appellant.
On January 3, 1996, Berrian approached Smith and complained
that he was shortchanged in the December 27 marijuana purchase.
Smith replied that appellant was the one who measured out the
amounts of marijuana, and he speculated that appellant probably
smoked some of it while it was stored at his apartment.
On January 17, 1996, while wearing a recording device,
Berrian approached appellant and asked to buy more marijuana from
him.
at trial.
members.
It reads as follows:
Hey, Young . . . .
* * *
CW:
YOUNG:
Probably Friday.
CW:
YOUNG:
CW:
YOUNG:
CW:
So just ah . . . .
YOUNG:
CW:
YOUNG:
Friday . . .
CW:
YOUNG:
Alright . . .
CW:
YOUNG:
Yeah . . .
CW:
Alright . . . .
if you can . . .
Defense counsel
Trial counsel
Trial counsel
tape and read the transcript, the military judge gave the
following limiting instruction:
Now, members of the court, before we proceed, theres a
matter I want to bring to your attention. Based on a
reading of Prosecution Exhibit 6 for identification
that we just retrieved [the transcript], and listening
to Prosecution Exhibit 5 [the tape], this evidence may
suggest to you that Berrian was attempting to set up
another drug transaction with the accused, and that the
accused may have tentatively agreed to do so.
Now this evidence may be considered by you for its
limited purpose of its tendency to show that the
accused intended to join in a conspiracy, and that is
the conspiracy that he is charged with.
Youll be told when I instruct you on the law of
conspiracy that ones intent must embrace each and
every element of the target offense and in this case
that would be distribution.
Secondly, this information or this evidence has been
provided to you to show the context in which the
In closing
The
This
In
This
See
United States v. Latney, 108 F.3d 1446, 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1997);
United States v. Buckner, 91 F.3d 34, 36 (7th Cir. 1996); United
States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 29 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 1046 (1996); United States v. Olivo, 69 F.3d 1057, 1063
(10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 906 (1996); United
States v. Morsley, 64 F.3d 907, 911 (4th Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 516 U.S. 1065 (1996); United States v. Corona, 34 F.3d
876, 881 (9th Cir. 1994); 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence 415 (1994)
A military judge
United States v.
United States v.
Browning, 54 MJ 1, 7 (2000).
Applying the foregoing principles, we hold that the military
judge did not abuse his discretion.
Appellants
It
Art.
Decision
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
10
EFFRON, Judge
Ample
Nonetheless, I agree
with the majoritys view that any error in this case was
rendered harmless by the substantial weight of appellants
admissions regarding the charged offenses.
In my view,