United States v. Coble
201600130
| N.M.C.C.A. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- Appellant (an instructor pilot) was convicted at a general court-martial of violating a lawful general order, making a false official statement, and sexual assault; sentence approved was dismissal and three years’ confinement.
- Incident: after flirtatious/sexual exchanges over time, appellant went to ENS H’s hotel room after a call; ENS H said “no,” resisted, appellant held her wrists and had intercourse; ENS H reported the assault the next day and made restricted reports.
- Investigative evidence: a recorded pretext call in which the appellant acknowledged ENS H said “no” and described the encounter as “playful”; appellant later denied the encounter to NCIS and denied having sex.
- At trial, the government called CDR W (appellant’s former CO) in rebuttal to testify that appellant’s character for truthfulness was below expectations; defense objected to foundation and prejudice.
- Appellant also challenged multiple trial counsel comments in closing as prosecutorial misconduct; several objections were sustained at trial and the judge gave curative instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing/rebuttal | Trial counsel vouched for witnesses, disparaged appellant, argued facts not in evidence, shifted burden — prejudicial error | Many objections were sustained; unobjected comments reviewed for plain error; overall argument was isolated and derivative of evidence | No reversible misconduct; any improper remarks were not materially prejudicial given curative instructions and case strength |
| Admission of CDR W’s opinion on appellant’s truthfulness (foundation) | CDR W lacked adequate foundation; opinion was conclusory and rested on two isolated incidents | CDR W personally knew appellant, saw him 3–4 times/week for >2 years as XO/CO and supervised him — sufficient opportunity to form opinion | Foundation was adequate; military judge did not abuse discretion admitting opinion under Mil. R. Evid. 608(a) |
| Mil. R. Evid. 403 balancing (prejudicial effect of CO’s opinion) | Testimony from a commander is highly prejudicial and minimally probative; should have been excluded as cumulative/waste of time | Appellant’s credibility was a central issue after appellant testified; testimony was relevant and brief; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice | Admission was not an abuse of discretion; even if erroneous, any error was harmless given strength of government case and limiting instruction |
| Prior challenge to members’ unanimity/standard of proof instruction (raised on appeal) | Instruction phrased as "if you are firmly convinced… you must find him guilty" was plain error | Superior court authority upheld similar instruction; issue resolved adversely to appellant | Rejected in light of controlling CAAF decision; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hornback, 73 M.J. 155 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (defines prosecutorial misconduct standard)
- United States v. Meek, 44 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (prosecutorial misconduct defined against legal norms)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1935) (classic statement on prosecutor duties and limits)
- United States v. Fletcher, 62 M.J. 175 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (review standards for improper argument and prejudice)
- United States v. Manns, 54 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (deference and requirement for Rule 403 balancing articulation)
- United States v. Baumann, 54 M.J. 100 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (harmlessness analysis for erroneously admitted evidence)