7 M.J. 655 | U.S. Army Court of Military Review | 1979
Contrary to his pleas, appellant was found guilty of conspiracy to sell marihuana and of the wrongful possession, transfer, and sale of marihuana. The convening authority approved a sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for two years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of Private (E-1).
I
We first give consideration to appellant’s assertion that the military judge erred by failing to order that the Article 32
The test for determining whether an absent witness is “unavailable” to testify at an Article 32 investigation is whether the significance of the witness’ testimony outweighs the relative difficulty and expense of obtaining the witness’ presence at the investigation. United States v. Chestnut, 2 M.J. 84 (C.M.A.1976); United States v. Ledbetter, 2 M.J. 37 (C.M.A.1976). Although recent appellate decisions have focused on situations where the absent witness was one of the key witnesses for the prosecution,
The trial defense counsel in the instant case failed to present either the investigating officer or the trial judge with any information concerning the significance of Evans’ testimony that would tend to outweigh the obvious delay and expense which would have been occasioned by returning him to Germany.
II
We turn now to the appellant’s assertion that he was denied access to evidence by the government’s improper destruction of the tape recordings of the testimony of two government witnesses
The appellant’s assertion of his right to the production of the tapes is based on the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The first question we must address is whether production of Article 32 testimony falls under this act. This issue has not been addressed by this Court although the Air Force Court of Military Review has held the Jencks Act applicable to Article 32 testimony.
The second question to be decided is whether the unintentional destruction of the taped testimony is inherently prejudicial to the appellant and requires striking of the testimony of those witnesses at trial. The Court of Military Appeals has stated that “Not every Jencks Act error is prejudicial. [Citations omitted] Consequently, we must consider the circumstances to determine the extent to which the error may have effected the result.”
The circumstances of this case show that no prejudice accrued to the appellant. The appellant was represented at the Article 32 investigative hearing by a civilian counsel, an appointed military counsel, and an indi
We have considered the remaining assignments of error and consider them to be without merit.
The findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed.
. Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 832.
. The record does not disclose whether there was compliance with paragraph 34d, Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969 (Revised edition) in requesting the witness.
. United States v. Cumberledge, 6 M.J. 203 (C.M.A.1979); United States v. Cruz, 5 M.J. 286 (C.M.A.1978); United States v. Chuculate, 5 M.J. 143 (C.M.A.1978); United States v. Chestnut, 2 M.J. 84 (C.M.A.1976). See also United States v. Jackson, 3 M.J. 597 (N.C.M.R.), affirmed, 3 M.J. 206 (C.M.A.1977).
. United States v. Ledbetter, supra, at 43; United States v. Samuels, 10 U.S.C.M.A. 206, 212, 27 C.M.R. 280, 286 (1959).
. Paragraph 115a, MCM, 1969 (Rev.).
. There is no suggestion in this case that Evans’ transfer was accomplished for an improper reason. C. f., United States v. Cruz, supra, note 2.
. The record of the Article 32 investigation was made an appellate exhibit at trial and is therefore part of the record for the purpose of deciding this issue.
. See generally, United States v. Carey, 1 M.J. 761 (A.F.C.M.R.1975), pet. denied, 2 M.J. 179 (C.M.A. 1976); United States v. Young, 49 C.M.R. 133 (A.F.C.M.R.1974).
. The testimony involved is that of a government agent and a government informant. They were the two witnesses called at trial by the government to prove the charges against the appellant.
. Unlike the Air Force, the Army has no regulation requiring the retention of tapes if recorded. See United States v. Scott, 6 M.J. 547 (A.F.C.M.R.1978) and United States v. Jarrie, 5 M.J. 193 (C.M.A.1978).
. United States v. Combs, 28 C.M.R. 866 (A.F.B.R.1959); United States v. Scott, supra. But see United States v. Haywood, 41 C.M.R. 939 (A.F.B.R.1969).
. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(3).
. United States v. Albo, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 30, 46 C.M.R. 30 (1972).
. Id. at 34.