United States v. Solomon
2013 CAAF LEXIS 499
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Solomon was tried by a general court-martial with mixed pleas, convicted of Articles 92 and 112a, and also found guilty of several other offenses including abusive sexual contact and obstruction of justice; adjudged sentence included dishonorable discharge and six years’ confinement.
- CCA initially set aside Article 134 and later reassessed, affirming a four-year confinement and rest of sentence, which this Court reviews.
- Prior to trial, the Government proffered three earlier incidents under M.R.E. 413; two were suppressed, one (the third incident) proceeded to evidence and expert testimony at a Article 39(a) hearing.
- Evidence of the third incident involved statements by LCpls B and R and Dr. Nancy Slicner, suggesting a pattern of sexually deviant behavior by Solomon; defense highlighted acquittal and alibi evidence.
- The military judge admitted the 413 evidence, relying on Berry and Wright, and conducted a Rule 403 balancing favoring admissibility, amid concerns about alibi and acquittal evidence.
- This Court reverses as to the admission of M.R.E. 413 evidence, finding the military judge failed to reconcile alibi evidence and disregarded the acquittal, rendering the balancing flawed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was M.R.E. 413 evidence admission an abuse of discretion? | Solomon argues the court abused discretion by admitting prior acts without proper balancing. | Solomon contends the Rule 403 balance supported admission due to similarity and probative value. | Yes; admission was an abuse of discretion. |
| Did the military judge properly weigh alibi and acquittal in the 413 analysis? | Alibi evidence and acquittal should diminish probative value of prior acts. | Acquittal and alibi do not defeat admissibility under 413 when threshold requirements are met. | No; failure to reconcile alibi and acquittal undermined the balancing. |
| Did the 413 ruling prejudice the findings or amount to harmless error? | Evidentiary error was material given Government’s theory of pattern and propensity. | Any error could be harmless if probative value outweighed prejudice. | Not harmless; error substantially influenced the findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Berry, 61 M.J. 91 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (threshold rules and 403 balancing for 413 evidence)
- U.S. v. Wright, 53 M.J. 476 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (threshold requirements for admissibility of similar offenses)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (U.S. 1988) (preponderance standard for similarity evidence)
- U.S. v. Ediger, 68 M.J. 243 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary decisions)
- U.S. v. Manns, 54 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (M.R.E. 403 balancing guidance)
- U.S. v. James, 63 M.J. 217 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (limiting scope of propensity evidence under 413)
- U.S. v. Bailey, 55 M.J. 38 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (careful handling to limit time on 413 evidence)
- U.S. v. McCollum, 58 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (nonconstitutional error standard for prejudicial effect)