Another case exploring some limits on victim impact statements.
United States v. Halter.
Appellant pled guilty to one specification of assault consummated by a battery, one specification of reckless endangerment, two specifications of assault upon an intimate partner, and an additional specification of assault consummated by a battery. He was sentenced to six months confinement, RiR, a BCD and a reprimand.
After returning from post-trial error corrections the court took up four issues.
(1) MJ erred by letting the victim present improper victim impact information in the victim’s unsworn statement. (No plain error.)
Appellant contends that the MJ erred when he allowed LV to discuss an uncharged offense in her unsworn statement to the military judge. Specifically, Appellant argues that LV’s unsworn statement was focused on threatening comments he made to her after the last incident that were not charged, and additionally, that the threatening comments were not tied to the offenses to which Appellant pleaded guilty.
(2) TC committed prosecutorial misconduct during her sentencing argument by arguing that the Appellant should be sentenced based on an uncharged offense.
Trial counsel then argued:
There being no objection the court looked through the plain error lens and found no error, and even if there was there was no prejudice.
Cheers, Phil Cave
Comments are closed.
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Army Crim. L. Deskbook