On Tuesday CAAF granted review in the following Army case:
No. 17-0231/AR. U.S. v. Torrence A. Robinson. CCA 20140785. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issues raised by Appellant:
I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY FAILING TO ADMIT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED EVIDENCE UNDER MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 412(b)(1)(C).
II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN HE FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE PANEL ON THE MENS REA REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIFICATION OF CHARGE I, WHICH INVOLVED AN ARTICLE 92, UCMJ, VIOLATION OF ARMY REGULATION 600-20.
And the following issue specified by the Court:
III. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT APPELLANT KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT SPC VM WAS TOO INTOXICATED TO CONSENT TO A SEXUAL ACT.
Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.
I don’t see an opinion on the Army CCA’s website (meaning the case was summarily affirmed).
Mil. R. Evid. 412 is the military’s rape shield rule, and it prohibits admission of evidence “offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior” (Mil. R. Evid. 412(a)(1)) and evidence “offered to prove any alleged victim’s sexual predisposition” (Mil. R. Evid. 412(a)(2)). The rule does, however, contain exceptions, including for:
[E]vidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the accused.
Mil. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C). This exception is the one at issue in this case and it is notable for three reasons. First, there isn’t a bright-line where exclusion of evidence violates an accused’s constitutional rights. Second, the exception is still actually in the rule (while a similar exception in Mil. R. Evid. 513 was ordered removed by Congress in the FY15 NDAA and then was removed by Executive Order 13696). Finally, the exception conflicts with the rule’s procedural requirements in a way that CAAF found constitutionally-problematic in United States v. Gaddis, 70 M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F. 2011), but has not been fixed.
CAAF also docketed a writ-appeal in a Navy-Marine Corps case (no opinion is available on the CCA’s website):
No. 17-0315/AF [sic]. Jeremy E. Hassett v. United States. CCA 201600118. Notice is hereby given that a writ-appeal petition for review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals on application for extraordinary relief was filed under Rule 27(b) on this date.