United States v. Savala
2011 WL 1886285
C.A.A.F.2011Background
- Appellant was convicted by a general court-martial of attempted larceny, rape, unlawful entry, and adultery under the UCMJ, with a dishonorable discharge, seven years’ confinement, forfeitures, and reduction to E-1.
- On appeal, the issue presented was whether the denial of cross-examination of the accuser regarding a prior alleged rape was prejudicial beyond a reasonable doubt.
- M.R.E. 412 generally bars evidence of a sexual-acts or predisposition, but contains an exception for evidence whose exclusion would violate the accused’s constitutional rights.
- Two defense M.R.E. 412 motions were denied; the first sought to admit evidence of a prior Virginia Beach incident, the second sought to cross-examine about that prior incident after the government opened the door during trial.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held the second ruling error but harmless; the Navy‑Marine Corps CAAF reversed, finding prejudicial error requiring rehearing.
- A dissent argued the law-of-the-case doctrine barred reconsideration and that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of cross-examination under M.R.E. 412 was prejudicial | Savala: cross-examination opened by government opening the door; error prejudicial. | Savala: military judge properly limited cross-examination to protect victim’s privacy and avoid prejudice. | Prejudicial error; reversed and rehearing authorized. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Banker, 60 M.J. 216 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (M.R.E. 412 relevant to admissibility and door-opening)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (confrontation and cross-examination limits; factors for prejudice)
- United States v. Moss, 63 M.J. 233 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (credibility evaluation and cross-examination relevance)
- United States v. Moran, 65 M.J. 178 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (role of cross-examination in evaluating credibility)
- United States v. Doss, 57 M.J. 182 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (law-of-the-case considerations and appellate review)
- United States v. Parker, 62 M.J. 459 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (law-of-the-case doctrine and appellate discretion)