4 M.J. 706 | U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Military Review | 1977
The accused was convicted at a special court-martial bench trial of aggravated assault and burglary. On appeal, he contends that failure of his defense counsel to make a motion to strike the testimony of a key prosecution witness who refused to answer a question on cross-examination constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and that admission of evidence of a prior special court-martial conviction after findings requires a rehearing on sentence. He also suggests that the military judge erred in granting a prosecution motion for continuance and denying a defense motion to strike testimony concerning incriminating admissions to an informer who had not warned the accused of his rights under Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 831.
A key prosecution witness testified on direct examination that the accused made damaging admissions to her. She was subjected to a searching cross-examination during which the witness admitted that she had been an unauthorized absentee, had a pregnancy out of wedlock, and had homosexual relations. When, however, she was asked by individual civilian defense counsel whether she smoked marijuana, the military judge did not require her to answer. Citing United States v. Rivas, 3 M.J. 282 (C.M.A.1977), the accused claims that defense counsel was attempting to impeach the witness by showing that she had committed an offense involving moral turpitude,
The other assignments of error raised by appellate defense counsel and by the accused in request for appellate representation also are without merit.
The findings of guilty and sentence as approved on review below are affirmed.
Senior Judge NEWTON and Judge GRANGER concur.
. See United States v. Hinkson, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 126, 37 C.M.R. 390 (1967).
. See MCM, 1969 (Rev.), para. 1535(2).