United States v. Carter
2015 CAAF LEXIS 546
C.A.A.F.2015Background
- Appellant was convicted by general court-martial of an indecent act under Article 120, UCMJ, and sentenced to six months’ confinement, reduction to E-1, forfeiture, and bad-conduct discharge.
- Appellant received 27 days confinement credit, including 2 pretrial and 25 for Article 13 violations; convening authority approved the sentence and credit; Air Army Court affirmed.
- Defense moved for Article 13 pretrial punishment credit; the defense and trial counsel later agreed on 25 days credit, which the military judge recorded as part of the process.
- Defense sought to present Article 13 violations as mitigation at sentencing; the military judge initially sustained objections for lack of relevance since credit had been addressed.
- The military judge ultimately relied on case law (Gammons and Southwick) to hold that presenting Article 13 evidence to the panel for mitigation after credit would be two bites at the apple; the judge did not allow dual presentation.
- This Court held that Article 13 evidence can be admitted to both the military judge (as a law question) and the panel (as mitigation), but with proper balancing and instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge abused discretion by excluding Article 13 evidence at sentencing | Appellant: defense should present Article 13 as mitigation after credit. | Government: dual presentation would be two bites; law unsettled; judge did not err. | No abuse of discretion; judge correctly limited dual presentation. |
| Whether Article 13 evidence can be used for both confinement credit and sentencing mitigation | Appellant may present evidence to both judge and panel. | Government: careful balance and not double-count; one venue for credit, another for mitigation. | No per se rule against dual presentation; allowed if admissible under rules. |
| Whether Article 13 credits are law and panel mitigation is a sentencing issue | Appellant should get law determination by judge and mitigation by panel. | Government: maintain separation; defense tactic choice. | Yes; Article 13 is law for the judge and mitigation for the panel. |
| Whether the military judge’s reliance on Gammons/Southwick was appropriate | Appellant argues authority supports dual use of evidence. | Government argues those decisions do not require dual presentation in this exact context. | Judge’s reasoning sound; not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the decision conflicts with Barnett regarding Article 13 evidence | Barnett confirms testimony can be presented twice in some contexts. | Barnett distinguished on specific facts; not controlling here. | Majority clarifies no per se rule; Barnett not controlling as to two-presentation in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gammons, 51 M.J. 169 (CAAF 1999) (four options for presenting NJP evidence; gatekeeping role of accused)
- United States v. Southwick, 53 M.J. 412 (CAAF 2000) (treatment of Article 13 evidence; trial tactics; election between forums)
- United States v. Barnett, 71 M.J. 248 (CAAF 2012) (Article 13 evidence presented twice; noted unsettled law and concurrence)
- United States v. Edwards, 42 M.J. 381 (CAAF 1995) (bench-trial context; election between judge and convening authority)
- United States v. Spaustat, 57 M.J. 256 (CAAF 2002) (Article 13 credit as question of law; de novo review)