National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

CAAFlog

Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals

8/11/2023

 
The court in Estep follows earlier opinions within the service courts and CAAF on a broad approach to the use of uncharged misconduct at sentencing.
When uncharged misconduct is part of a continuous course of conduct involving similar  crimes and the same victims, it is encompassed within the language directly relating to or resulting from the offense of which the accused has been found guilty under R.C.M. 1001(b)(4). United States v. Nourse, 55 M.J. 229, 231–32 (C.A.A.F. 2001). . . . see also United States v. Wingart, 27 M.J. 128, 135 (C.M.A. 1988) (holding that R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) allows a trial counsel to “present evidence as to any aggravating circumstances directly relating to or resulting from the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty”).
Estep had pled guilty to possessing CP and distributing it. His first Grosty was,
(1) whether the military judge abused his discretion by considering as aggravation evidence Prosecution Exhibit 8, a video depicting CP, without determining whether Appellant knowingly possessed it and without properly weighing its probative value[.]
Exhibit 8 is CP recovered from his "older phone." " He argues that this evidence was not proper aggravation evidence because he may not have knowingly possessed this video. He further argues that this evidence fails a Mil. R. Evid. 403 balancing test." However, the military judge  "found that the video offered in Prosecution Exhibit 8 was on the phone during the charged timeframe, that the possession of this video was the same offense as the one charged, and that the content was similar in nature rendering it, as he noted, “squarely admissible” under R.C.M. 1001(b)(4)." Further, the military judge did a "thorough" Mil. R. Evid. 403 balance.

There is no information in the decision reflecting testimony or even an unsworn statement that Estop denied knowingly possessing the evidence in Exhibit 8.

Should we consider that in uncharged misconduct situations, the military judge should be required to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused did commit the uncharged misconduct when doing the 403 analysis?

Comments are closed.
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Co-editors:
    Phil Cave
    Brenner Fissell
    Links

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal
    -2025 Ops
    ​
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    JRAP
    JRTP


    UCMJ

    Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.)
    ​
    ​
    MCM 2024
    ​
    MCM 2023

    MCM 2019
    MCM 2016
    MCM 2012
    MCM 1995

    ​
    UMCJ History

    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    J. App. Prac. & Pro.

    Dockets

    Air Force

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Army

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Coast Guard

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    ​"Records."

    Navy-Marine Corps

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    "Records."

    Archives

    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly