United States v. Gaddis
2011 CAAF LEXIS 669
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Appellant was convicted by general court-martial of sodomy with a child under twelve and four indecent acts with a child; sentence: dishonorable discharge, eight years confinement, forfeiture, and reduction to E-1.
- TE, Appellant’s minor stepdaughter, testified to multiple alleged sexual assaults in 2004-2005; TE was fourteen at trial (2008).
- TE reported the alleged assaults to MG in 2006 during TE’s residence with MG’s family; TE feared a gynecological exam would reveal sexual activity.
- Defense sought to introduce evidence suggesting TE believed her mother planned a medical exam due to rumors of sexual activity, to show motive to fabricate; Government sought to exclude as sexual-behavior prejudicial under M.R.E. 412.
- Military judge allowed limited cross-examination focused on TE’s motive but prohibited substantive discussion of emails and their contents.
- CCA affirmed most findings but dismissed one indecent-acts specification; affirmed the sentence after reassessment; this Court granted review on M.R.E. 412 issues and balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of M.R.E. 412(c)(3) balancing | Gaddis argues the balancing test is facially unconstitutional. | Gaddis contends the balancing test is valid and applies correctly. | Balancing test not facially unconstitutional; current form confusing but workable. |
| Constitutionally required evidence and cross-examination | Gaddis asserts the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine. | Prosecution asserts limits were proper; defense had opportunity to cross-examine and present motive. | Exclusion did not violate the right to cross-examination; evidence not constitutionally required in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banker, 60 M.J. 216 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (balancing victim privacy against probative value in M.R.E. 412)
- Sanchez, 44 M.J. 174 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (promoted balancing of probative value with victim privacy in 412)
- Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (right to confront witnesses and limits on cross-examination)
- Collier, 67 M.J. 347 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (clarified meaning of ‘unfair prejudice’ under M.R.E. 403 vs 412 context)
- James, 61 M.J. 132 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (limits on cross-examination balanced against confrontation concerns)