United States v. Erikson
2017 CAAF LEXIS 406
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- Appellant (Spc. Erikson) was convicted at a general court-martial of two specifications of sexual assault and one of adultery; sentence included BCD, 3 years confinement, reduction to E‑1; one sexual-assault specification later dismissed by convening authority and CCA summarily affirmed.
- The victim (Spc. BG) alleged Erikson sexually assaulted her after a drinking event; roommate PFC W testified the victim acted consensually and made statements suggesting a false report; victim reported the assault the next day.
- Defense sought to admit evidence that the victim previously accused another soldier of sexual assault and that that prior accusation was false (arguing a pattern/motive to fabricate to gain sympathy and repair a relationship).
- The prior accused had been acquitted at a summary court-martial; defense offered that acquittal, the prior accused’s denial, and a third witness’s denial as evidence of falsity.
- The military judge held an Article 39(a) in‑camera hearing, found the defense failed to prove the prior accusation was false (crediting the victim over other witnesses), and excluded the proffered evidence under M.R.E. 412 and related principles.
- The CAAF reviewed the exclusion for abuse of discretion, concluded the defense did not meet its burden to show falsity, and affirmed the CCA decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence that victim previously accused another soldier of sexual assault | Govt: evidence inadmissible because prior accusation not proven false and M.R.E. 412 shields such evidence absent a foundational showing | Erikson: prior summary‑court acquittal and testimony show the prior accusation was false and show a pattern/motive to fabricate, so the evidence should be admitted | Exclusion affirmed: defense failed to prove falsity; military judge did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Velez, 48 M.J. 220 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (prior sexual‑assault allegations admissible to challenge credibility only if shown false)
- United States v. McElhaney, 54 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (upheld exclusion where defense offered no persuasive proof complaint was false)
- United States v. Olson, 74 M.J. 132 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Ellerbrock, 70 M.J. 314 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (M.R.E. 412 scope and confrontation limits on cross‑examination)
- United States v. Smith, 68 M.J. 445 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (burden on accused to show evidence is relevant, material, favorable to defense for M.R.E. 412 exception)
- United States v. Gaddis, 70 M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (limitations on cross‑examination may be permissible to prevent harassment or marginal relevance)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (right to probe witness motivation and bias via cross‑examination)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (confrontation rights subject to reasonable limits; harmless‑error considerations)