Army Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Love

Love is a reminder that Grosty issues can sometimes get attention, although not always much love.

Appellant asserts three errors before this court, none of which merits discussion or relief. Pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), appellant asserts nine errors before this court, one of which merits discussion but ultimately no relief. 

Appellant [personally] asserts the military judge erred when he allowed the government to question the victim during his unsworn statement. While we agree this was error, we find the error was forfeited when appellant did not object and based on the overall tenor of the examination, as compared to the victim's narrative statement, the error was harmless. 

The court notes the error is a repeat from the prior iteration of the rule.

This court addressed a nearly identical issue under a prior version of the rule in United States v. Cornelison, 78 M.J. 739 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2019). Appellant contends, in light of Cornelison, it was error for the military judge to allow the government to conduct direct examination of the victim's unsworn statement under R.C.M. l00l(c). While we agree that it was error, the error was forfeited when appellant did not object. See Cornelison, 78 M.J. at 742 n.2. 

For various reasons the Cornelison court found no prejudice partly because the prosecution argued for 30 years confinement but the members adjudged 18 months.