United States v. Greene- Watson
24-0096/AF
C.A.A.F.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Appellant, Senior Airman Jaquan Q. Greene-Watson, was convicted by a military judge of communicating a threat to his wife (MGW) but acquitted of child assault.
- The underlying incident occurred in September 2020, after which Greene-Watson was subject to a no-contact order.
- Seventeen months after the charged conduct, MGW alleged further uncharged acts of domestic violence and threats, which the prosecution sought to introduce under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 404(b) as evidence of a common scheme or plan to control MGW.
- The defense challenged the admission of these later acts, arguing they were too remote, more egregious than the charged offense, and improperly allowed proof of propensity.
- The military judge allowed the evidence, limiting its consideration to a common plan or scheme, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reviewed whether admittance of acts occurring well after the charged offense, as evidence of a common scheme or plan, was correct under M.R.E. 404(b).
Issues
| Issue | Greene-Watson's Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-offense acts under M.R.E. 404(b) | Acts 17 months later too remote; risked propensity inference; not a common plan | Subsequent acts showed a common plan to control/intimidate MGW relevant to wrongfulness of the charged threat | Admission was not abuse of discretion and any error was harmless; affirmed |
| Requirement for similarity between charged and uncharged acts | Acts must be nearly identical to show "common scheme or plan" | Common factors suffice, even if not identical, per precedent | Common factors were sufficient under controlling precedent |
| Adequacy of trial court’s M.R.E. 403 balancing | Judge did not thoroughly articulate or apply weighting/principles | Judge considered limiting purpose, and risk of prejudice was low in a bench trial | No reversible error in balancing; trial judge presumed to ignore propensity |
| Substitution of rationale by appeals court | Appeals court used a different rationale (intent/wrongfulness) from trial judge | Evidence's link to the wrongfulness of the threat supported its admission | Affirmed on basis that evidence supported both common plan and wrongfulness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Young, 55 M.J. 193 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (no temporal limit for admitting prior or subsequent acts under M.R.E. 404(b)).
- United States v. James, 63 M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (subsequent acts can be admitted to show intent, plan, etc. under military rules).
- United States v. Hyppolite, 79 M.J. 161 (C.A.A.F. 2019) ("common factors" between charged and uncharged acts are sufficient for common plan evidence).
- United States v. Wilson, 84 M.J. 383 (C.A.A.F. 2024) (lays out abuse of discretion standard for admission/exclusion of evidence).
- United States v. Reynolds, 29 M.J. 105 (C.M.A. 1989) (sets three-part test for M.R.E. 404(b) evidence admissibility).