United States v. Private E1 JAMESON T. HAZELBOWER
ARMY 20150335
| A.C.C.A. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Appellant, Private Jameson T. Hazelbower, was convicted by a military judge at a general court-martial of multiple sexual offenses (including rape, rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, sexual assault of a child), desertion, and possession of child pornography; sentence: dishonorable discharge, 50 years confinement, forfeiture of pay; 201 days credit.
- Trial was by military judge alone (no members). The government moved to admit charged and uncharged sexual misconduct under Mil. R. Evid. 413 and 414 to show propensity; the military judge granted the motion over defense objections.
- Appellant argued on appeal that United States v. Hills required reversal because admitting charged offenses as propensity evidence was erroneous; appellant also argued improper use of propensity evidence at sentencing.
- The military judge explicitly stated on the record that he conducted M.R.E. 403 balancing, admitted the propensity evidence for limited purposes, considered it minimally in findings, and would apply proper standards at sentencing.
- Appellant separately raised ineffective-assistance claims in a personal (Grostefon) submission alleging counsel failed to object to hearsay and to the 413/414 evidence; the court found those claims speculative and without merit and declined further factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of charged offenses under Mil. R. Evid. 413 in a judge-alone trial | Hills requires that admitting charged offenses as 413 evidence is error and warrants reversal | In a military-judge-alone trial, admitting charged and uncharged propensity evidence is permissible because the judge can follow the law and limit its use | Admitted evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in judge-alone trial; no reversal required |
| Use of propensity evidence at sentencing | Propensity evidence was improperly applied during sentencing and tainted outcome | Military judge applied M.R.E. 403 balancing, limited use, and expressly confined its role in sentencing; any error was harmless | No relief: judge properly limited evidence and any use was harmless |
| Ineffective-assistance of counsel (Grostefon submissions) | Trial counsel failed to object to hearsay and failed to challenge 413/414 evidence effectively | Appellant’s allegations are speculative/conclusory and record shows counsel cross-examined and pursued strategy; insufficient to warrant relief | Denied: claims do not warrant affidavits or DuBay hearing and would not produce relief |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hills, 75 M.J. 350 (C.A.A.F.) (addresses limits on admitting charged offenses as propensity evidence)
- United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F.) (presumption that judges know and follow the law)
- United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236 (C.A.A.F.) (standards for evaluating unsworn claims of ineffective assistance)
- United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A.) (procedures for personal submissions asserting trial error)