United States v. Steen
20-0206/CG
| C.A.A.F. | Jun 14, 2021Background
- A civilian traffic stop of Seaman Apprentice (SA) Harris recovered ~2 grams of marijuana and a pipe; Harris told Coast Guard investigators that Petty Officer Justin Steen had sold him marijuana days earlier.
- A search of Steen’s phone showed calls with Harris near the alleged sale date and text messages Steen sent days after the sale seeking marijuana for his own use.
- Pretrial, Steen moved to suppress the texts as impermissible propensity evidence; the military judge initially granted suppression but said he might reconsider if the defense opened the door.
- At trial Steen testified and denied selling marijuana; the Government then moved to reconsider and the military judge admitted the texts as impeachment/rebuttal after finding the door opened. The members convicted Steen of wrongful introduction and distribution of marijuana.
- The Coast Guard CCA held admission of the texts was an M.R.E. 404(b) error but harmless; this Court reviewed whether that harmlessness finding was correct.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (majority) concluded the CCA was wrong on prejudice: the erroneous admission was not harmless, reversed the CCA, set aside findings and sentence, and authorized a rehearing. (Dissent argued the texts were admissible under Trimper and any instructional error was harmless.)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Steen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post‑offense texts (M.R.E. 404(b)/608(b)) | Texts admissible to show Steen needed to "replenish" marijuana (plan) or to impeach his denial of drug involvement under Trimper | Texts are propensity evidence and inadmissible under M.R.E. 404(b); suppression appropriate | CCA correctly held texts were inadmissible under M.R.E. 404(b); majority accepted that and did not rest decision on admitting them |
| Prejudice / harmless‑error standard | Any error was harmless; conviction should stand | Admission produced new, high‑quality ammunition that materially damaged defense credibility and was prejudicial | Majority: Government failed to show harmlessness under Yammine factors; error had substantial influence — findings and sentence set aside |
| Scope of review / cross‑appeal / law‑of‑the‑case | Government may defend the judgment below on alternative grounds (cross‑appeal doctrine) | Appellant argued court limited to prejudice question under law of the case unless Government certified admissibility issue | Court treated admissibility as addressable (footnote), but resolution turned on prejudice; dissents would have found texts admissible under Trimper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Trimper, 28 M.J. 460 (C.M.A. 1989) (permitting extrinsic impeachment/rebuttal where witness makes a broad collateral assertion on direct)
- United States v. Yammine, 69 M.J. 70 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (framework and four‑factor test for assessing harmlessness of nonconstitutional error)
- United States v. Fetrow, 76 M.J. 181 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (government bears burden to show nonconstitutional error was harmless)
- United States v. Matthews, 53 M.J. 465 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (presumption that court members follow limiting instructions)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (appellee may defend a judgment on any ground the record permits)
- United States v. Williams, 41 M.J. 134 (C.M.A. 1994) (applies cross‑appeal doctrine in military appeals context)
- Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436 (1912) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine expresses practice to avoid reopening matters but does not strip appellate power)