United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera , 63 M.J. 372 ( 2006 )

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Roberto RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA, Personnelman Second Class
U.S. Navy, Appellant
No. 05-0270
Crim. App. No. 9900859
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued April 5, 2006
Decided August 9, 2006
ERDMANN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
GIERKE, C.J., and EFFRON and BAKER, JJ., joined. CRAWFORD, J.,
filed a separate opinion concurring in part and in the result.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USNR (argued).
For Appellee: Major Kevin C. Harris, USMC (argued); Commander
Charles N. Purnell, JAGC, USN (on brief).
Military Judge: Kenneth A. Krantz
This opinion is subject to revision before final publication.
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
Judge ERDMANN delivered the opinion of the court.
Personnelman Second Class Roberto Rodriguez-Rivera was
convicted at a general court-martial of making false official
statements, committing forcible sodomy on a child under twelve,
taking indecent liberties with a female under the age of
sixteen, and committing indecent acts with a female under the
age of sixteen, in violation of Articles 107, 125 and 134,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 907, 925,
934 (2000). He was sentenced to a reduction in grade to E-1,
forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for twelve
years and a dishonorable discharge. The convening authority
approved the sentence and the United States Navy-Marine Corps
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, 60 M.J. 843, 848-49 (N-M. Ct.
Crim. App. 2005).
We granted review of the following issues:1
I.
WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL COMMITTED
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT BY (1) VIOLATING
THE MILITARY JUDGE’S ORDERS REGARDING
WITNESS SEQUESTRATION; (2) BY IMPROPERLY
COACHING THE SIX-YEAR-OLD COMPLAINING
WITNESS DURING HER DIRECT TESTIMONY; (3) BY
PURPOSEFULLY ALLOWING OTHER WITNESSES TO
1
We heard argument in this case on April 5, 2006, at the
University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, Denver, Colorado, as
part of the Court’s “Project Outreach.” See United States v.
Mahoney, 58 M.J. 346, 347 n.1 (C.A.A.F. 2003). This practice
was developed as part of a public awareness program to
demonstrate the operation of a Federal Court of Appeals and the
military justice system.
2
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
IMPROPERLY COACH THE COMPLAINING WITNESS
DURING HER DIRECT TESTIMONY; (4) BY FAILING
TO BE CANDID WITH THE COURT-MARTIAL
REGARDING THE COACHING OF THE WITNESS BY
TRIAL COUNSEL AND OTHER WITNESSES; AND (5)
BY FAILING TO BE CANDID WITH THE COURT-
MARTIAL ABOUT NOTES PASSED FROM A
PROSECUTION WITNESS DURING THE DEFENSE’S
CASE.
II.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY
ADMITTING OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION, THE
INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE
COMPLAINANT WITNESS.
III.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY
GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S CHALLENGE FOR
CAUSE OF CHIEF ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN DANIEL
J. [ABEYTA].
IV.
WHETHER THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE ERRED BY
FAILING TO SERVE APPELLANT WITH A LETTER
FROM TRIAL COUNSEL TO THE CONVENING
AUTHORITY THAT NEGATIVELY CHARACTERIZED
APPELLANT’S UNSWORN STATEMENT.
V.
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ON THE MERITS
WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT TOOK
INDECENT LIBERTIES WITH JK BY WATCHING
PORNOGRAPHIC MOVIES WITH JK.
VI.
WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF
LAW WHERE THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST LEVEL
OF APPELLATE REVIEW TOOK MORE THAN SIX
YEARS.
3
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
BACKGROUND
From August 1997 through December 1997, Rodriguez-Rivera
and his wife babysat for their neighbor’s child, JK, at Royal
Air Force Station, West Ruislip, England. In March of 1998,
when JK was five, she disclosed to her parents that she had been
sexually abused by Rodriguez-Rivera. The day following this
disclosure, JK’s mother arranged a meeting with the base Family
Advocacy Representative that was also attended by a Naval
Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agent. Appellate Exhibit
LV reflects that during this meeting JK stated that on numerous
occasions Rodriguez-Rivera had sucked and kissed her “pee pee”,
she had sucked his “pee pee”, he had showered with her and
rubbed soap on her, and he had masturbated in front of her. In
addition, JK also told the NCIS agent that she had watched adult
movies with Rodriguez-Rivera while in his bed. An initial
medical examination of JK disclosed no evidence of any trauma to
her vagina.
During a NCIS interview, Rodriguez-Rivera denied having any
improper or sexual contact with JK. He did admit to possessing
pornographic videos and allowing JK to take baths while he was
babysitting her. A search of Rodriguez-Rivera’s home resulted
in the seizure of pornographic videos. Other facts relevant to
the disposition of the issues are set forth in the Discussion
section.
4
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
DISCUSSION
I. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Rodriguez-Rivera alleges that the following actions by
trial counsel constituted prosecutorial misconduct: (1)
violation of the military judge’s orders regarding witness
sequestration; (2) improperly coaching the victim; (3) allowing
other witnesses to coach the victim; (4) failing to be candid
with the court-martial regarding the alleged witness coaching;
and (5) failing to be candid with the court-martial about notes
received from a prosecution witness during the defense case. We
will first consider the initial four allegations pertaining to
witness coaching and then address the final allegation.
A. Witness sequestration and witness coaching allegations
1. Factual Background
JK was six years old at the time of trial. JK’s testimony
on direct examination was not consistent with her earlier
statements to her parents and the Family Advocacy
Representative. At trial JK testified only that Rodriguez-
Rivera had sucked her “pee pee” more than one time and that she
had seen a “sex movie . . . [a]t Rod’s house” but that
Rodriguez-Rivera had done nothing more. Following repeated
attempts by the trial counsel to elicit additional testimony,
the defense counsel requested an Article 39(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.
§ 839(a) (2000), session at which he asked the military judge to
5
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
prohibit the Government from pursuing this line of questioning
as JK had testified that Rodriguez-Rivera had not done anything
else to her. The military judge sustained the defense objection
on the ground that the questions had been asked and answered.
Following that ruling, trial counsel asked the military judge
for permission to impeach JK’s testimony with her prior
inconsistent statements. Defense counsel then requested a
recess to consider that issue.
Following the recess defense counsel expressed concern to
the military judge that trial counsel had been in a room with JK
during the break. The assistant trial counsel explained that JK
was concerned about the delay in her testimony and asked whether
she had done something wrong and that he had advised her that
she had not done anything wrong but she might have to continue
her testimony. The military judge then granted a defense
request to voir dire JK about her understanding of what had been
said to her during the break.
During voir dire the defense asked JK what had happened
during the break and JK responded that she had gone to the trial
counsel’s office with her “momma” and “daddy.” She said that
the assistant trial counsel “wanted [her] to tell him the rest
of the story” and that the trial counsel told her not to be
scared. JK testified that after the trial counsel left the room
her parents told her she had not told the entire story and that
6
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
she needed to go back into court and say more. She also said
they talked to her about some of the things that had happened to
her.
After JK’s voir dire defense counsel argued to the military
judge that JK should not be allowed to testify further before
the members because she was influenced by what happened during
the break. The Government responded that there was no need to
prohibit her from testifying because there was no evidence of
manipulation or danger of prejudice. Both parties noted that
the facts regarding what occurred during the break could be used
to impeach JK on cross-examination and defense counsel requested
a proffer from the assistant trial counsel as to what had been
said so that he could use it for that purpose.
The assistant trial counsel stated that JK had asked him
what was going on and whether she had done anything wrong, and
he told her “no.” He also told her that she might have to
testify again and if she did so she would need to tell the
truth. She responded that she would tell the truth and stated
that she had already done so. The trial counsel then said, “she
started to talk about other things,” and she told him she had
not testified about Appellant putting his “pee pee” in her mouth
and about the masturbation (which she indicated by moving her
hands). He said that the victim’s parents were already in the
room when he came in and were there when he left. When he
7
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
entered the room a second time trial counsel was talking to JK
and “telling her not to be afraid.”
The military judge ruled that the members would be allowed
to hear further testimony from JK. He also noted:
It goes without saying that the events since
the last open session with the members are
fair game for cross-examination along the
lines of the voir dire already conducted,
and to the extent that that makes the child
less comfortable or makes cross-examination
last longer than it otherwise would have,
that’s what happens when you talk to a
witness, or when parents talk to a child
witness during a break of this kind; issues
like that arise, and I will permit the
defense to explore them fully.
JK returned to the stand and detailed for the members how
Rodriguez-Rivera masturbated and ejaculated on her. She
indicated that he “soaped her” and washed her “pee pee” and also
testified that Rodriguez-Rivera sucked her “pee pee” and she
sucked his “pee pee.” On cross-examination defense counsel
questioned JK about what happened during the break. JK told the
members that her parents and assistant trial counsel told her to
tell the truth and to tell the rest of the story. In response
to a member’s question, JK also stated that neither her parents
nor either trial counsel told her what to say “for the rest of
the story.”
2. Discussion
Prosecutorial misconduct is generally defined as “action or
inaction by a prosecutor in violation of some legal norm or
8
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
standard, e.g., a constitutional provision, a statute, a Manual
rule, or an applicable professional ethics canon.” United
States v. Meek, 44 M.J. 1, 5 (C.A.A.F. 1996); United States v.
Thompkins, 58 M.J. 43, 47 (C.A.A.F. 2003). In analyzing
allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, “courts should gauge
the overall effect of counsel’s conduct on the trial, and not
counsel’s personal blameworthiness.” Thompkins, 58 M.J. at 47
(citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 220 (1982)).
Where the military judge and the lower court have made
factual determinations regarding the events surrounding
allegations of misconduct, we will accept those determinations
unless they are clearly erroneous. See United States v. Warner,
62 M.J. 114, 124 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (“Relevant facts are drawn from
the record of trial, and we accept the factual findings of the
courts of criminal appeals unless they are clearly erroneous.”).
If prosecutorial misconduct is found, this court will examine
the record as a whole to determine whether Appellant was
prejudiced by the misconduct. United States v. Fletcher, 62
M.J. 175, 184 (C.A.A.F. 2005). This court weighs three factors
in evaluating the impact of prosecutorial misconduct on a trial:
(1) the severity of the misconduct; (2) the measures adopted to
cure the misconduct; and (3) the weight of the evidence
supporting the conviction. Id.9
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
a. Violation of Sequestration Order
There was no formal sequestration order issued by the
military judge at trial and the record is unclear as to whether
the military judge explicitly warned JK’s parents not to discuss
their testimony with other witnesses. Rodriguez-Rivera argues
that a sequestration order can be implied because the military
judge denied a request from the Government to allow one or both
of JK’s parents to be present when she testified. The lower
court found that this ruling did not amount to a formal
sequestration order and we agree. Rodriguez-Rivera, 60 M.J. at
847. There may be cases, based upon the dialogue between the
parties and the military judge, where there is a sound basis in
the record for concluding that there was a clear, common
understanding between the military judge and the parties as to
sequestration, without issuance of a formal order. In such a
case, violating that clear understanding could constitute
prosecutorial misconduct. In this case, there is neither a
formal nor a clearly understood sequestration order. Unless the
record demonstrates that witnesses were to be sequestrated, the
prosecution cannot be found to have intentionally committed
misconduct. As a result, we conclude that there was no
prosecutorial misconduct in this allegation.
10
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
b. Coaching by Trial Counsel, Assistant Trial Counsel, or
JK’s Parents
The lower court concluded that the military judge did not
prohibit the prosecutors from discussing JK’s testimony with her
and also found that they did not discuss the substance of her
testimony with her. Id. Rather, the prosecutors did no more
than encourage JK “to testify to the whole truth rather than a
part of it.” Id. The lower court concluded that there was no
prosecutorial misconduct in allowing JK’s parents “to admonish
her to tell the whole truth while testifying[,]” and that “it is
appropriate and reasonable for a young child witness to remain
in the company of parents or care providers while awaiting trial
participation.” Id. at 847-48.
As a general matter, we have permitted greater latitude and
flexibility when it comes to treatment and testimony of child
witnesses. See United States v. McCollum, 58 M.J. 323, 330-31
(C.A.A.F. 2003) (authorizing remote live testimony under certain
circumstances); United States v. Anderson, 51 M.J. 145, 150
(C.A.A.F. 1999) (upholding military judge’s decision to allow a
child to testify behind a screen); United States v. Morgan, 31
M.J. 43, 48 (C.M.A. 1990) (giving military judge flexibility in
determining a child’s competency as a witness); United States v.
Jones, 26 M.J. 197, 198 (C.M.A. 1988) (permitting trial counsel
to lead retarded, seventeen-year-old witness); see also Paramore
v. Filion, 293 F. Supp. 2d 285, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[C]ourts
11
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
generally recognize that child witnesses present special
challenges when testifying in sexual abuse cases and that these
challenges must be recognized and accommodated.”).
JK testified that the assistant trial counsel “wanted [her]
to tell him the rest of the story” and that the trial counsel
told her not to be scared. The assistant trial counsel
testified that JK volunteered these incidents in response to his
telling her that she needed to be sure to tell the truth. While
JK did testify that she and her parents discussed incidents with
Rodriguez-Rivera which she did not initially mention at trial,
she went on to state that they discussed the incidents because
her previous testimony “wasn’t the whole story.” The lower
court’s findings that both trial counsel and JK’s parents did
nothing more than encourage JK to tell the truth and to tell the
whole story was not clearly erroneous. We therefore conclude
that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred.
While we conclude there was no prosecutorial misconduct, we
also note that to the extent the military judge did have
concerns about any influence the discussion during the break may
have had on JK, he mitigated that influence by allowing cross-
examination of JK concerning the events during the break and the
possibility that JK was coached or coerced. Defense counsel
asked JK several questions about these events during cross-
examination. If there was any danger that the meetings with JK
12
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
might have influenced her testimony, the members were made fully
aware of this possibility.
c. Assistant Trial Counsel’s Candor Regarding the
Discussions that Occurred During the Break
The military judge and the lower court also found no merit
in Rodriguez-Rivera’s contentions that trial counsel was less
than candid about the discussions that occurred during the
break. Rodriguez-Rivera, 60 M.J. at 848. The military judge
told assistant trial counsel:
It is equally clear that [JK’s] perceptions
of the meeting are different from yours, and
we are dealing with a child and the
perceptions of a child, and the emotional
impact of adult behavior on a child, so the
difference in perception doesn’t cause me to
doubt the accuracy of your summary, but it
is the impact on the child witness that
counts.
While there was some disagreement about the discussions that
occurred between JK, both trial counsel, and JK’s parents, we
agree that in this case a difference in perception between the
assistant trial counsel and a child witness is not a sufficient
basis for finding that the assistant trial counsel was dishonest
with the military judge. We conclude that the lower court’s
finding that the assistant trial counsel was candid regarding
the discussions that occurred during the break was not clearly
erroneous. Therefore, we conclude that there was no
prosecutorial misconduct arising from this allegation.
13
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
B. Notes from a witness during the trial
1. Factual Background
At trial the Government called Captain Barbara Craig, a
pediatrician who had examined JK, as an expert witness. During
the defense case Dr. Craig was observed passing notes to the
trial counsel. When the Government recalled Dr. Craig to
testify on rebuttal, the defense objected on the basis that Dr.
Craig had listened to other witnesses and had collaborated with
the Government by passing notes to the trial counsel during the
trial.
The military judge ruled that the trial counsel had to turn
over the notes that Dr. Craig had passed to trial counsel.
Trial counsel objected because the notes contained notations
made by the trial counsel. The military judge permitted trial
counsel to redact those notations, and the court then took a
short recess. When the court reconvened, trial counsel advised
the military judge that the notes that Dr. Craig had passed were
not written by Dr. Craig, but that Dr. Craig was merely relaying
notes passed to trial counsel from other people. The military
judge accepted trial counsel’s explanation, allowed Dr. Craig’s
rebuttal testimony and did not require trial counsel to turn
over the notes.
14
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
2. Discussion
Rodriguez-Rivera asserts that the trial counsel exhibited a
lack of candor about notes passed to him by Dr. Craig during the
defense’s case. In ruling that Dr. Craig’s rebuttal testimony
would be allowed, however, the military judge accepted trial
counsel’s explanation that Dr. Craig was passing notes from
someone other than Dr. Craig herself. The military judge had
the opportunity to observe the proceedings and the explanation
of the trial counsel. We see no basis in the record to conclude
that the military judge’s finding that trial counsel was candid
with regard to this incident was clearly erroneous. Therefore,
there is no basis to conclude that prosecutorial misconduct
occurred with regard to these notes.
C. Conclusion
In summary, we find that Rodriguez-Rivera has failed to
meet his burden of showing that the lower court’s determinations
concerning the facts underlying the allegations of prosecutorial
misconduct were clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm the
Court of Criminal Appeals on these issues.
II. ADMISSIBILITY OF DR. CRAIG’S TESTIMONY REGARDING STATEMENTS
MADE BY JK
A. Factual Background
After JK reported the incidents to her mother she was
examined by Commander V. D. Morgan, a doctor at the Navy Medical
Clinic in London. Doctor Morgan concluded that there was “zero
15
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
evidence of trauma or infection to [JK’s] genitalia or anus.”
JK’s mother sought to have her examined by someone who was “[a]
specialist in child sex abuse cases,” and tried unsuccessfully
to make an appointment with a specialist in London. She then
renewed a request to her command that she be transferred to the
United States to find the proper care for JK.
After JK and her family returned to the United States, JK
was examined by Dr. Craig, an experienced pediatrician and
director of the Armed Forces Center for Child Protection at the
National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Maryland. Dr. Craig
was recommended to JK’s parents by trial counsel who also
contacted Dr. Craig to request that she see JK. Dr. Craig’s
examination of JK occurred the same day as Rodriquez-Rivera’s
Article 32, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 832 (2000), hearing was held.
At trial, Dr. Craig testified regarding her medical
examination of JK and her subsequent conclusion that JK had
injuries consistent with “some kind of penetrating injury . . .
.” Dr. Craig testified that her examination of JK was necessary
because JK “had not yet had a thorough medical evaluation” and
she noted that Dr. Morgan was a “family practitioner” who “does
not specialize in child sexual abuse.” She also testified that
JK told her a “person named Rod touched her genital area with
his mouth, and that she touched that person’s penis with her
mouth . . . .”
16
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
Prior to trial, Rodriguez-Rivera made a motion to exclude
the testimony of Dr. Craig concerning statements made to her by
JK on the grounds that it was inadmissible hearsay. He argued
that the purpose of Dr. Craig’s examination was not medical
diagnosis or treatment but rather it was “done for the purposes
of litigation.” In ruling upon the motion, the military judge
considered an affidavit from Dr. Craig. In that affidavit Dr.
Craig stated that trial counsel “was aware that there are very
few pediatricians in the military with clinical experience in
[child sexual abuse] . . . .” Therefore, the purpose of her
examination was to “conduct a thorough medical examination” and
to give a “second opinion regarding [JK]’s health and if she
needed any further medical or psychological intervention . . .
.” Dr. Craig explained to JK why she was seeing her and JK
expressed her understanding that “doctors make you better” and
that she had to tell the doctor the truth about what was wrong
in order to get better. The military judge denied the motion
and found that the testimony was admissible on the basis of
Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 803(4), the medical diagnosis
and treatment exception to the hearsay rule.
B. Discussion
M.R.E. 803(4) provides an exception to the general hearsay
rule and allows the admission of statements made for the purpose
of medical diagnosis or treatment.
17
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
Statements which are offered as exceptions
to hearsay under Mil. R. Evid. 803(4) must
satisfy two conditions: first the
statements must be made for the purposes of
“medical diagnosis or treatment”; and
second, the patient must make the statement
“with some expectation of receiving medical
benefit for the medical diagnosis or
treatment that is being sought.”
United States v. Edens, 31 M.J. 267, 269 (C.M.A. 1990) (quoting
United States v. Deland, 22 M.J. 70, 75 (C.M.A. 1986)). The
military judge found that the “criteria for the medical hearsay
exception have been met in this case” and denied the defense
motion to exclude Dr. Craig’s testimony regarding statements
made to her by JK. The military judge’s decision to admit this
evidence is reviewed by this court for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Hollis, 57 M.J. 74, 79 (C.A.A.F. 2002).
Rodriguez-Rivera argues that since the examination with Dr.
Craig was arranged by the trial counsel the same day as
Rodriguez-Rivera’s Article 32, UCMJ, hearing, the examination
clearly was not for the purpose of medical treatment but rather
was for the purpose of allowing hearsay testimony into evidence
through M.R.E. 803(4). This court has previously concluded that
the referral of a victim to a medical professional by trial
counsel “is not a critical factor in deciding whether the
medical exception applies to the statements she gave to those
treating her. The critical question is whether she had some
18
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
expectation of treatment when she talked to the caregivers.”
United States v. Haner, 49 M.J. 72, 76 (C.A.A.F. 1998).
The military judge’s finding that the “criteria for the
medical hearsay exception have been met in this case” are
supported by Dr. Craig’s affidavit. Dr. Craig explained to JK
why she was coming to see her and JK expressed her understanding
that “doctors make you better” and that she had to tell the
doctor the truth about what was wrong in order to get better.
The purpose of Dr. Craig’s examination was to “conduct a
thorough medical examination” and to provide a “second opinion
regarding [JK]’s health and if she needed any further medical or
psychological intervention . . . .”
Under the circumstances of this case, the fact that trial
counsel initiated the examination of JK by Dr. Craig is not a
sufficient reason to hold that the military judge’s findings
were clearly erroneous. When she was referred to see Dr. Craig
JK had not been seen by a doctor who specialized in child sexual
abuse cases despite her mother’s repeated attempts to have her
seen by such an expert. Furthermore, Dr. Craig had extensive
experience in treating suspected victims of child sexual abuse
and was qualified to provide the type of examination that JK
needed and had been unable to obtain. Because the military
judge’s findings that Dr. Craig saw JK for the purpose of
medical diagnosis and treatment, and that JK expected to receive
19
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
medical treatment when she saw Dr. Craig were not clearly
erroneous, we hold that his decision to admit the statements
made by JK to Dr. Craig under M.R.E. 803(4) was not an abuse of
discretion.2
III. CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE OF CHIEF ABEYTA
A. Factual Background
During the voir dire of potential members, Chief Electronic
Technician (ETC) Daniel J. Abeyta stated that he believed
“children can be coerced just a little bit easier [than adults]”
and that because a child was nervous he or she might be more
likely to “just say what they think you want them to say.” He
also had the following exchange with trial counsel:
TC: Would you be able to follow an instruction
telling you that the testimony of one
witness whom you believe should be enough to
make a decision in this case. In other
words, if the government, if we only present
one witness but you believed that witness is
that going to be enough for you to make a
decision in this case without any other
testimony or evidence?
MBR (ETC ABEYTA): It would depend on what the
witness said?
2
While not the situation here, we note that military judges must
remain vigilant in ensuring that the hearsay exception for
statements made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or
treatment is not used as a subterfuge. In this case, while
trial counsel could have reasonably anticipated that Dr. Craig
would testify regarding JK’s medical condition as a result of
trial counsel’s referral, the record also reflects that Dr.
Craig legitimately saw JK for the purpose of medical diagnosis
and treatment.
20
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
TC: But just as a general concept, if that is
all we gave you, is that going to be enough,
or are you going to kind of want something
more?
MBR (ETC ABEYTA): I would want more. Let me put
it that way.
TC: What about if that witness were a child?
Would you even feel more like they would
need more to corroborate that or wouldn’t it
make a difference if it was an adult vice
[sic] a child?
MBR (ETC ABEYTA): Either way, if it was an adult
or a child, one witness might not be enough.
TC: Okay. Because you feel like the government
needs to give you more than that?
MBR (ETC ABEYTA): I feel it is the government’s
obligation to come up with as much evidence
as possible.
TC: Do you understand that sometimes the
circumstances of the allegations make it so
that there is actually only one person who
actually witnessed a particular event?
MBR (ETC ABEYTA): Yes.
TC: Okay. So bearing that in mind, would you
still feel you kind of needed something else
to corroborate that or another witness’
testimony to sort of enhance the other
person’s testimony?
MBR (ETC ABEYTA): Being there only one witness
and --
TC: For example in this case, you know, from the
charge sheet you can see that there are
allegations of child sexual abuse. Clearly
that is the type of situation where there
may be only one eyewitness. So, based on
that, would you feel that if you only had
one witness come into court that you would
21
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
still kind of want something to corroborate
that?
MBR (ETC ABEYTA): Yes, I might want a little bit
more, and, like I said, it would depend on
what the witness would say if their [sic]
testimony --
TC: But in general you would feel like you
wanted something more than that?
MBR (ETC ABEYTA): In general, yes.
The Government challenged three members for cause including
Abeyta. The Government argued that all three members had
indicated they would require more than the testimony of the
child witness to convict someone of child abuse and that such
statements indicated they would place a higher burden on the
prosecution than the law requires. The defense did not object
to the challenge of one of the members, but argued that there
was insufficient basis for excusing either of the other two.
The military judge denied the challenge against one of the other
two members but granted the prosecution’s challenge for cause
against Abeyta. The military judge explained that he granted
the challenge: “Because of his views not only on wanting more
than the testimony of one witness but of his view on the
potential suggestibility or coercibility of children and
vulnerability to having answers guided.”
B. Discussion
In evaluating a military judge’s ruling on a challenge for
cause, this court has found it appropriate to recognize the
22
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
military judge’s superior position to evaluate the demeanor of
court members. United States v. McLaren, 38 M.J. 112, 118
(C.M.A. 1993). We will not, therefore, reverse a military
judge’s ruling on a challenge for cause absent a clear abuse of
discretion. Id.; United States v. White, 36 M.J. 284, 287
(C.M.A. 1993). We also have noted that there is “no basis for
application of the ‘liberal grant’ policy when a military judge
is ruling on the Government’s challenges for cause.” United
States v. James, 61 M.J. 132, 139 (C.A.A.F. 2005).
The burden at trial is on the Government to prove every
element of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The
testimony of only one witness may be enough to meet this burden
so long as the members find that the witness’s testimony is
relevant and is sufficiently credible. See United States v.
McGinty, 38 M.J. 131, 132 (C.M.A. 1993) (determination that one
witness is more believable than another is sufficient); United
States v. Arias, 3 M.J. 436, 437-38 (C.M.A. 1977) (evidence
legally sufficient where “the accused’s guilt turned ‘basically’
upon whether the trial judge believed the child or the
accused”); see also Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606, 608
(1945) (“Triers of fact in our fact-finding tribunals are, with
rare exceptions, free in the exercise of their honest judgment
to prefer the testimony of a single witness to that of many.”);
Paramore, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 293 (“In some states, including New
23
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
York, children’s uncorroborated sworn testimonies are legally
sufficient to convict a defendant on criminal charges.”). If a
potential member states he would require the Government to
produce more evidence than the testimony of one witness in order
to find any element beyond a reasonable doubt, then he is
holding the Government to a higher standard than the law
requires and should not be allowed to sit on the panel.
Abeyta’s responses to questioning by the trial counsel
clearly indicated that he would want “a little bit more” than
just the testimony of one witness in order to conclude that the
Government had met its burden. Even when he agreed that there
might only be one witness in a case of child sexual abuse such
as this one, he persisted in his belief that he would want the
Government to provide additional evidence. He did not waiver in
his stance, even when trial counsel gave him the opportunity to
clarify or change his position. Because Abeyta maintained that
he would require more than the testimony of one witness for the
Government to meet its burden, we conclude that the military
judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the Government’s
challenge for cause against Abeyta. We recognize that defense
counsel attempted to rehabilitate Abeyta, but that
rehabilitation fell short of establishing sufficient grounds
upon which to conclude that the military judge abused his
discretion in granting the challenge for cause.
24
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
IV. FAILURE TO SERVE COMMENTS ON RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA’S UNSWORN
STATEMENT
A. Factual Background
Before the convening authority acted on the case,
Rodriguez-Rivera submitted a request for clemency. The request
was sent through the trial counsel, who forwarded the request to
the convening authority with a note that read:
Recommend denial due to the serious nature of the
crimes this criminal committed upon a four and five
year old girl over a five-month period of time. In
addition, when given the opportunity during his
unsworn statement in the sentencing phase of the
trial, the accused failed to exhibit any remorse
whatsoever for what he had done to this little girl
and her family.
This note was never served on Rodriguez-Rivera.
B. Discussion
Rule for Courts-Martial 1107(b)(3)(A) requires that prior
to taking action on a court-martial sentence a convening
authority must consider the results of trial, the recommendation
of the staff judge advocate and any clemency submission from the
accused. Rule for Courts-Martial 1107(b)(3)(B)(iii) further
provides that the convening authority may also consider
additional matters that he deems appropriate but “if the
convening authority considers matters adverse to the accused
from outside the record, with knowledge of which the accused is
not chargeable, the accused shall be notified and given the
opportunity to rebut.”
25
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
The Government and Rodriguez-Rivera disagree on whether the
trial counsel’s note constitutes a matter adverse to Rodriguez-
Rivera from outside the record. However, we need not reach that
question because we conclude that there was no prejudice to
Rodriguez-Rivera from the inclusion of comment on his clemency
request. See United States v. Farley, 60 M.J. 492, 493
(C.A.A.F. 2005) (“We need not decide whether there was error,
because any error was harmless.”); United States v. Phanphil, 57
M.J. 6, 11 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (“We need not resolve the conflicting
interpretations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a) because any error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
Where “matters adverse to the accused from outside the
record” have been erroneously considered by the convening
authority, this court has stated:
[W]e will require appellant to demonstrate
prejudice by stating what, if anything,
would have been submitted to “deny, counter,
or explain” the new matter. . . . We believe
that the threshold should be low, and if an
appellant makes some colorable showing of
possible prejudice, we will give that
appellant the benefit of the doubt and “we
will not speculate on what the convening
authority might have done” if defense
counsel had been given an opportunity to
comment.
United States v. Chatman, 46 M.J. 321, 323-24 (C.A.A.F. 1997)
(citing Unites States v. Jones, 44 M.J. 242, 244 (C.A.A.F.
1996); United States. v. DeGrocco, 23 M.J. 146, 148 (C.M.A.
1987)). Rodriguez-Rivera asserts that the trial counsel
26
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
inaccurately characterized his unsworn statement by stating that
he showed no remorse. He argues he would have rebutted this
characterization by showing that “the accused did show remorse
during his unsworn statement in that he cried and apologized to
the Navy, his command, and to his shipmates. In addition he
asked for the mercy of the Court.”
Rodriguez-Rivera’s assertions regarding his proposed
rebuttal to trial counsel’s statements do not rise to a
“colorable showing of possible prejudice.” Chatman, 46 M.J. at
324. We have examined the unsworn statement in detail.
Contrary to Rodriguez-Rivera’s claim, his unsworn statement did
not express remorse for his misconduct or for his victim. His
apology was directed to his “shipmates, my command and the Navy”
and was for any “inconvenience that I caused” rather then for
any harm to the victim. At no point did Rodriquez-Rivera
express any regret or similar emotion toward the victim or her
family. The proposed rebuttal to trial counsel’s statement was,
in short, inaccurate. Thus, we conclude that whether or not
there was error in failing to serve trial counsel’s comments
upon the defense, Rodriguez-Rivera has failed to sustain his
burden of making a colorable show of prejudice.
27
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
V. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
A. Factual Background
Specification 3 of Charge III alleges that Rodriguez-Rivera
took indecent liberties with JK, a female under the age of
sixteen, by watching pornographic movies with her. JK testified
that she saw a “sex movie . . . [a]t Rod’s house . . . [i]n his
bedroom.” She testified that the “sex movie” had a lady with
red shoes in it and that the lady had long hair. She also
testified that “[a]ll of [the movies] had ladies and boys.”
Trial counsel asked her whether she or Rodriguez-Rivera got
the movie and she responded that she “didn’t know because I saw
it when I was there. I didn’t know when he bought it.” When
asked whether she or Rodriguez-Rivera put the movie “in the
machine to play it” she responded that she did not remember. A
member asked if “anyone else ever show[ed her] a sex movie any
other time, except for Mr. Rod” and she answered “no.” A
pornographic tape was admitted at trial and a portion shown to
the members containing a scene with a woman with red shoes
matching JK’s description.
At the close of the Government’s case, trial defense
counsel made a motion to dismiss the indecent liberties
specification and a separate specification alleging, in part,
that Rodriguez-Rivera made a false official statement by denying
that he watched pornographic videos while JK was in his home.
28
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
Trial defense counsel argued there was no evidence Rodriguez-
Rivera watched pornographic movies with the victim or gave a
false official statement when he stated he “never watched
pornographic videotapes while JK was in his home.” In making
findings of fact on the motion, the military judge stated he did
not find evidence that Rodriguez-Rivera “ever watched
pornographic videotapes while [JK] was in his home.” He granted
the defense motion to dismiss the portion of the specification
alleging that Rodriguez-Rivera had made a false official
statement regarding this incident. However, the military judge
declined to dismiss the indecent liberties specification which
alleged that Rodriguez-Rivera watched a pornographic movie with
JK.
B. Discussion
In determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient,
we “‘view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution’” and decide whether “‘any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Brown, 55 M.J. 375, 385
(C.A.A.F. 2001) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979)). The specification at issue here alleges that
Rodriguez-Rivera took indecent liberties with JK by watching
pornographic movies with her. The Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (2005 ed.) (MCM) provides that “[w]hen a person is
29
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
charged with taking indecent liberties, the liberties must be
taken in the physical presence of the child . . . .” MCM pt.
IV, para. 87.c(2). We must determine, therefore, whether a
rationale trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt
that Rodriguez-Rivera was physically present with JK when she
watched pornographic movies at his house.
We first note that the military judge specifically
concluded that he did not find any evidence Rodriguez-Rivera
“ever watched pornographic videotapes while [JK] was in his
home.” Looking at the record in its entirety, we see no
evidence that could lead a reasonable member to conclude that
Rodriguez-Rivera watched the pornographic movie “with” JK.3
While there is evidence to establish that JK watched a
pornographic movie at Rodriguez-Rivera’s house, she never
testified that he was present when she did so. She testified
that she did not know or did not remember how the tape got to
the house or who put it in the machine to play it. Viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find
that there is no basis in the record to conclude that Rodriguez-
Rivera was present when JK watched the pornographic videotape.
3
During her meeting with the Family Advocacy Representative and
the NCIS agent, JK did state that she watched the movies while
in bed with Rodriguez-Rivera at his home. The written summary
of that meeting was admitted as an appellate exhibit but was not
admitted as a trial exhibit and therefore was not before the
members.
30
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
Accordingly, we will reverse the lower court and set aside
the guilty finding for Specification 3 of Charge III. However,
because we conclude that this error was harmless with regard to
sentencing we will not order a rehearing or reassessment and
will affirm the sentence as approved by the lower court. See
Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) (2000).
VI. APPELLATE DELAY
In analyzing whether appellate delay has violated the due
process rights of an accused we first look at whether the delay
in question is facially unreasonable. United States v. Moreno,
63 M.J. 129, 136 (C.A.A.F. 2006). If it is, then this court
examines and balances the four factors set forth in Barker v.
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972): (1) the length of the delay;
(2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the appellant’s assertion of
the right to timely review and appeal; and (4) prejudice.
Moreno, 63 M.J. at 135-36; United States v. Jones, 61 M.J. 80,
83 (C.A.A.F. 2005); Toohey v. United States, 60 M.J. 100, 102
(C.A.A.F. 2004). If we conclude that an appellant has been
denied the due process right to speedy post-trial review and
appeal, “we grant relief unless this court is convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt that the constitutional error is harmless.”
United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. __ (24) (C.A.A.F. 2006).
Whether an appellant has been denied the due process right to a
speedy post-trial review and appeal, and whether constitutional
31
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt are reviewed de
novo. United States v. Cendejas, 62 M.J. 334, 337 (C.A.A.F.
2006) (constitutional error); United States v. Kreutzer, 61 M.J.
293, 299 (C.A.A.F. 2005); United States v. Rodriguez, 60 M.J.
239, 246 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (due process); United States v. Cooper,
58 M.J. 54, 58 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (due process).
As a general matter, we can dispose of an issue by assuming
error and proceeding directly to the conclusion that any error
was harmless. See United States v. Gorence, 61 M.J. 171, 174
(C.A.A.F. 2005) (any error in permitting evidence of preservice
drug use was harmless); United States v. Lovett, 59 M.J. 230,
234 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (assuming error in admitting hearsay, the
error was harmless); United States v. Bolkan, 55 M.J. 425, 428
(C.A.A.F. 2001) (any error in defense counsel’s concession that
a punitive discharge was an appropriate punishment was
harmless). Similarly, issues involving possible constitutional
error can be resolved by assuming error and concluding that the
error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States
v. Cuento, 60 M.J. 106, 111 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (assuming that there
was error and that the error was of constitutional dimension,
error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt); see also United
States v. Saintaude, 61 M.J. 175, 183 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (court
need not determine whether counsel’s performance was
constitutionally deficient where it can determine that any such
32
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
error would not have been prejudicial). Thus, in cases
involving claims that an appellant has been denied his due
process right to speedy post-trial review and appeal, we may
look initially to whether the denial of due process, if any, is
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We will apply a similar
analysis where, even though the denial of due process cannot be
said to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no
reasonable, meaningful relief available.
Assuming that the delay of over six years to complete
Rodriguez-Rivera’s appeal of right denied him his right to
speedy review and appeal, we decline to afford additional
relief. In Moreno, we set forth a non-exhaustive list of the
types of relief available for denial of speedy post-trial review
or appeal. 63 M.J. at 143. We have considered the totality of
the circumstances and the types of relief that may be
appropriate here, in addition to setting aside the findings of
guilty to Specification 3 of Charge III. Because Rodriguez-
Rivera has served his full term of confinement, reduction of the
confinement or confinement credits would afford him no
meaningful relief. Further, reduction of adjudged forfeitures
would have no meaningful effect in light of the provisions for
automatic forfeitures. See Article 58b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 858b
(2000). Reducing the period of confinement enough to have a
significant impact upon collected forfeitures would also require
33
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270/MC
a dramatic reduction in the period of confinement that is
unwarranted under the circumstances of this case.
In coming to this conclusion, we have not lost sight of the
fact that Rodriguez-Rivera was deprived, for more than six
years, of the resolution of a legal claim on which he prevailed
and for which he was entitled to dismissal of certain of the
guilty findings against him. However, to fashion relief that
would be actual and meaningful in this case would be
disproportionate to the possible harm generated from the delay.
Accordingly, we conclude that no additional relief is
appropriate or warranted in this case.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court
of Criminal Appeals as to the finding of guilty to Specification
3 of Charge III is reversed. The finding of guilty to
Specification 3 of Charge III is set aside and that
specification is dismissed. The decision of the United States
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals as to the remaining
findings and the sentence is affirmed.
34
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, No. 05-0270
CRAWFORD, Judge (concurring in part and in the result):
I agree with the majority as to all the issues except Issue
VI (APPELLATE DELAY) and the affirmance of the remaining
findings and sentence. I dissociate myself, however, from this
Court’s analysis of that issue and its conclusion that Appellant
was denied his due process right to speedy review and appeal.
This Court’s analysis and conclusion are based on a prospective
rule set forth in United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F.
2006), and its misapplication of the Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S.
514 (1972), test. See Moreno, 63 M.J. at 144 (Crawford, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part).