United States v. Major ERIK J. BURRIS
ARMY 20150047
| A.C.C.A. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- Major Erik J. Burris was convicted at a general court-martial of multiple offenses including willful disobedience, two rapes, sodomy, and four assaults consummated by a battery; sentenced to dismissal, 20 years confinement, and forfeiture of pay.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) originally affirmed the findings and sentence.
- Burris moved for reconsideration and en banc review, arguing the ACCA conflicted with superior-court authority and overlooked legal and factual matters, especially concerning improper references to a motorcycle called "The Beast."
- Central legal issue: whether Burris preserved objections to improper character evidence and improper argument, and if not, whether plain-error review or waiver review applies.
- ACCA relied on Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M. 905(e) and 919(c)) and CAAF precedent to treat failure to object as an intentional waiver for these types of trial objections, not mere forfeiture.
- On reconsideration, ACCA again affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding Burris validly waived the objections and therefore is not entitled to plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to object to alleged improper argument/character evidence permits plain-error review | Burris: absent objection, improper argument is reviewed for plain error | Government: R.C.M. rules make failure to object a waiver, not forfeiture; no plain-error review | ACCA: waiver applies under R.C.M. 905(e) & 919(c); review is of validity of waiver, not plain error; waiver valid |
| Whether mere failure to object equals relinquishment of right | Burris: mere failure to object should be treated as forfeiture (entitling to plain error) | Government: the R.C.M. framework and CAAF precedent support that failure to object here constitutes waiver | ACCA: the specific R.C.M. language makes mere failure to object a valid waiver for these issues |
| Whether the court overlooked material factual matters about counsel’s conduct | Burris: counsel merely failed to object to references to "The Beast"—implying no intentional waiver | Government: procedural rules do not require additional formalities for waiver of these objections | ACCA: based on rules and precedent, mere failure to object is sufficient to constitute intentional relinquishment; no relief warranted |
| Scope of appellate review when an issue is waived at trial | Burris: seeks appellate correction via plain-error analysis | Government: appellate review is limited to assessing validity of waiver; waived issues generally precluded | ACCA: waiver precludes plain-error review; nothing to correct on appeal; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ahern, 76 M.J. 194 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture and discusses appropriate appellate review)
- United States v. Clifton, 71 M.J. 489 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (explains plain-error three-part test)
- United States v. Gladue, 67 M.J. 311 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (discusses forfeiture versus waiver distinction)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (framework for waiver, forfeiture, and requiredness of personal participation for waiver)
- United States v. Chin, 75 M.J. 220 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (limits appellate consideration of issues waived at trial)