United States v. Lopez
2017 CAAF LEXIS 197
| C.A.A.F. | 2017Background
- SGT Mario I. Lopez was tried by general court-martial and convicted of rape (Specification 1) and indecent liberties with a child (Specification 3); sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, five years confinement, forfeitures, and reduction in rank.
- Rape charge evidence: victim (wife CL) testified to nonconsensual intercourse on April 17, 2011; physical marks and Appellant’s DNA were found; two stepchildren heard distressing noises; CL reported and sought medical exam the next day.
- Indecent-liberties charge evidence: CL’s minor son JM testified that Appellant repeatedly showed him pornography in Korea and told him not to tell family; JM estimated many viewings over time.
- At trial, CL testified about a phone confrontation in which Appellant said, "if I did anything wrong, then I—you know, I apologize." CL interpreted that remark as a loose admission and said she believed JM was "telling the truth." Defense objected; the military judge overruled the objection.
- The Government conceded CL’s interpretation was improper lay opinion and potentially human-lie-detector testimony for the indecent-liberties charge; no objection was made to a different statement by a stepchild during the rape case.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (lead opinion) held the rape conviction was not materially prejudiced by the unobjected testimony, but the indecent-liberties conviction was prejudiced by CL’s improper testimony; it reversed Specification 3 and authorized a rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's/Defense (Respondent) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NM’s testimony that she “gathered” Appellant probably raped CL was inadmissible opinion/human-lie-detector and prejudiced the rape conviction | NM’s statement was impermissible lay opinion and human lie-detector testimony that invaded the panel’s role | The testimony was not objected to at trial; even if erroneous, any error was not materially prejudicial given strong government evidence | Court: No plain‑error reversal; testimony did not materially prejudice the rape conviction |
| Whether CL’s testimony interpreting Appellant’s apology as a loose admission was admissible lay opinion or human-lie-detector testimony | CL’s interpretation improperly vouched for JM’s credibility and amounted to human-lie-detector and impermissible lay opinion | Government ultimately conceded the testimony was improper; trial judge erred by admitting it | Court: Military judge abused discretion; error materially prejudiced the indecent‑liberties conviction; conviction reversed and rehearing authorized |
| Standard of review for unpreserved evidentiary error | Appellant: plain‑error review applies and must show material prejudice | Government: burden on appellant to show error was clear and materially prejudicial | Court: Applied plain‑error for unobjected testimony (rape) and abuse‑of‑discretion for preserved objection (indecent liberties) |
| Prejudice analysis framework for preserved evidentiary error | Appellant: erroneous testimony likely affected panel’s determination of JM’s credibility | Government: other admissible evidence sufficed; error harmless | Court: Used Kerr factors (strength of gov’t case, defense, materiality and quality of evidence) and found prejudice as to indecent‑liberties charge |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (plain‑error standard when error is forfeited at trial)
- United States v. Knapp, 73 M.J. 33 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (definition and prohibition on human lie‑detector testimony)
- United States v. Brooks, 64 M.J. 325 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (standard of review for preserved evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Martin, 75 M.J. 321 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (functional‑equivalent human lie‑detector testimony is inadmissible)
- United States v. Byrd, 60 M.J. 4 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (standards for admissible lay opinion testimony)
- United States v. Kerr, 51 M.J. 401 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (factors for evaluating prejudice from erroneous evidentiary rulings)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (standard for reasonable probability that outcome would differ)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant’s burden in plain‑error review)
- United States v. Powell, 49 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (panel’s role as factfinder and lie detector)
- United States v. Bungert, 62 M.J. 346 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (failure to establish any plain‑error prong is fatal)
- United States v. Barnett, 63 M.J. 388 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (prejudice analysis for erroneous evidentiary rulings)