Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Grants 7 May 2024

Orders Granting Petition for Review
 
No. 24-0096/AF. U.S. v. Jaquan Q. Greene-Watson. CCA 40293, petition is granted on the following issue:
 
WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE MILITARY JUDGE'S DECISION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OCCURRING 17 MONTHS AFTER THE CHARGED OFFENSE TO SHOW A COMMON SCHEME OR PLAN UNDER MIL. R. EVID. 404(b)—USING A DIFFERENT RATIONALE THAN THE MILITARY JUDGE.

(Note: read AFCCA for their application of United States v. Harrington, 83 M.J. 408 (C.A.A.F. 2023).)

​At the MJA trial, the government's rationale and the military judge's findings essentially are along the lines of

After articulating the Reynolds test and applicable caselaw on the “common plan or scheme” theory, the military judge ruled that each piece of evidence listed above was admissible under that rubric. In his ruling, the military judge identified the putative common plan or scheme at issue, to wit, a common plan or scheme to “frustrate MGW’s ability or willingness to report these allegations by taking actual steps to prevent her from reporting to increase his control over her so as to deter her from making a report.”

Apparently, consciousness of guilt was not raised at trial as a separate basis for admission.

However, the rationale also extends to the use of post-misconduct evidence to prove prior intent, motive, or state of mind generally, as our superior court has reasoned: “Depending upon the circumstances involved in a particular case, subsequent conduct showing a subsequent state of mind may be relevant to show an earlier state of mind at issue.” United States v. Colon-Angueira, 16 M.J. 20, 25 (C.M.A. 1983) (citation omitted).

CAAF has the opportunity to clarify (1) when a pattern of behavior intended to prevent or discourage reporting is admissible under Mil. R. Evid. 404(b), and (2) when can a CCA find an evidentiary basis for admission that was not raised, argued, or addressed by the parties at trial when affirming the conviction. Had the new basis been raised and argued at trial, the appellate courts would have a record and a military judge's ruling to apply the abuse of discretion standard.

---

No. 24-0130/AF. U.S. v. Chase J. Stanford. CCA 40327, petition is granted on the following issues:
 
I. WHETHER THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES HAS JURISDICTION TO DIRECT MODIFICATION OF THE 18 U.S.C. § 922 PROHIBITION NOTED ON THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE'S INDORSEMENT TO THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT.
 
II. WHETHER 18 U.S.C. § 922 CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY APPLY TO APPELLANT, WHO STANDS CONVICTED OF NONVIOLENT OFFENSES, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DEMONSTRATE THAT BARRING HIS POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IS "CONSISTENT WITH THE NATION'S HISTORICAL TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION" UNDER NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BRUEN, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022).