United States v. Halpin
2013 CAAF LEXIS 166
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Appellant pled guilty to multiple offenses, including failure to obey, adulter y, reckless endangerment, and wrongful use of Adderall, in a special court-martial.
- The panel sentenced Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, ten months’ confinement, and a reprimand; the convening authority approved.
- CCA affirmed; the appeal challenged prosecutorial misconduct, the military judge’s handling of the argument, and ineffective assistance for not objecting.
- Trial counsel made sweeping sentencing arguments implying intent to cause the wife’s death and alleging staging of a crime scene, unsupported by record evidence.
- Trial defense counsel did not object to these arguments; the government’s case included admissions in Appellant’s stipulation of fact.
- This court applies plain-error review due to lack of objection, weighing prejudice against the evidence and the trial record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in sentencing arguments | Halpin argues misconduct occurred | State argues arguments within discretion; no prejudice | No prejudice; no plain error |
| Interruption or curative instruction by military judge | Halpin contends lack of curative action harmed prejudice | State asserts no prejudice from absence of intervention | No prejudicial impact; no reversible error |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object | Halpin claims objective standards violated; prejudice shown | State argues no prejudice under Strickland | No prejudice; Strickland not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fletcher, 62 M.J. 176 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (balance of misconduct severity, cure, and evidence weight governs prejudice)
- United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (plain-error prejudice inquiry in sentencing misconduct)
- United States v. Marsh, 70 M.J. 101 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (plain-error framework for sentencing arguments)
- United States v. Baer, 53 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (arguments must be based on evidence; inferences from record)
- United States v. Schroder, 65 M.J. 49 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (prosecutorial misconduct limits in court-martial)
- United States v. Clifton, 15 M.J. 26 (C.M.A. 1983) (propriety of arguments and relevance to evidence)
- United States v. Burton, 67 M.J. 150 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (limits on arguments; reasonable inferences from evidence)
- Martinez, 30 M.J. 1194 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990) (military precedent on theory of guilt and punishment)