United States v. Specialist MICHAEL A. PRINCE ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                  UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    Before
    CONN, HOFFMAN, and GIFFORD
    Appellate Military Judges
    UNITED STATES, Appellant
    v.
    Specialist MICHAEL A. PRINCE
    United States Army, Appellee
    ARMY MISC 20100939
    1st Cavalry Division
    James L. Varley, Military Judge
    Colonel Mark Sydenham, Staff Judge Advocate
    For Appellee:  Colonel Mark Tellitocci, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Imogene M. Jamison, JA; Major Laura R. Kesler, JA; Captain Matthew T. Grady, JA (on brief).
    For Appellant:  Colonel Michael E. Mulligan, JA; Major Adam S. Kazin, JA; Captain Joshua W. Johnson, JA (on brief).
    22 December 2010
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND ACTION ON APPEAL
    BY THE UNITED STATES FILED PURSUANT TO
    ARTICLE 62, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Per Curiam:
    The military judge concluded that the Article 31, Uniform Code of Military Justice [hereinafter UCMJ], 
    10 U.S.C. § 831
     warnings given to appellee were completely lacking, incomplete, or insufficient for each of appellant's statements.  He, accordingly, suppressed all statements made during the appellee's six-hour interview.
    When acting on interlocutory appeals under Article 62, UCMJ, our court may act "only with respect to matters of law."  United States v. Cossio, 
    64 M.J. 254
    , 256 (C.A.A.F. 2007).  We may not substitute our own fact-finding.  
    Id.
      The military judge's findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law, de novo. United States v. Ayala, 
    43 M.J. 296
    , 298 (C.A.A.F. 1995). A military judge's ruling on admissibility of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  United States v. Ediger, 
    68 M.J. 243
    , 248 (C.A.A.F. 2010).  To overturn the trial judge's ruling on appeal, it must be "arbitrary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable or clearly erroneous."  United States v. Taylor, 
    53 M.J. 195
    , 199 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted).  Given the evidence of record, we do not find that the military judge was wrong as a matter of law.  Accordingly, the appeal by the United States, under Article 62, UCMJ, of the military judge's ruling is denied.
    FOR THE COURT:
    MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: ARMY 20100939

Filed Date: 12/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021