United States v. White
2010 CAAF LEXIS 1029
| C.A.A.F. | 2010Background
- White, a Major in the U.S. Air Force, was convicted at a general court-martial of signing a false official record and a false official document under Article 107, UCMJ; she was dismissed as punishment; Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
- Credentialing forms showed White’s prior criminal history in Army records; AF Form 1540 in 2006 and e-QIP in 2007 denied any felony history.
- Several Army credentialing forms contained no criminal history questions and predated the AF Form 1540 by years; the 1995 form asked about criminal history and White answered yes.
- Defense sought admission of seven credentialing forms and proposed lay and expert testimony to interpret credentialing questions as to intent to deceive.
- Military judge admitted the 1995 form but excluded the remaining credentialing forms and the proposed stipulations and anticipated testimony.
- Air Force CCA affirmed the evidentiary rulings; issue on appeal was whether exclusion of relevant credentialing material violated due process or discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge abused his discretion by excluding Army credentialing forms. | White argues forms show intent and state of mind. | Government contends forms are not relevant to charged offenses. | No abuse of discretion; forms not relevant. |
| Whether the lay/testimony on interpretation of the credentialing question was properly excluded. | Lay opinions would aid understanding of intent to deceive. | No nexus; opinions not tied to White pre-form completion. | No abuse of discretion; lay evidence excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Roberson, 65 M.J. 43 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (relevance threshold for admissible evidence)
- United States v. Dimberio, 56 M.J. 20 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (evidence must have nexus to state of mind)
- United States v. Reece, 25 M.J. 93 (C.M.A. 1987) (low threshold for relevance)
- United States v. Ediger, 68 M.J. 243 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Lloyd, 69 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard; defer to military judge)
- United States v. Ayala, 43 M.J. 296 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (interpretation of evidence; standard of review)