United States v. Bridges

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Carl T. BRIDGES, Fireman Machinery Technician
U.S. Coast Guard, Appellant
No. 07-0701
Crim. App. No. 1233
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued March 11, 2008
Decided May 12, 2008
EFFRON, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
BAKER, ERDMANN, STUCKY, and RYAN, JJ., joined.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Necia L. Chambliss
(argued); Lieutenant Commander Nancy J. Truax and Captain Teresa
Lynn Raymond.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Commander Patrick M. Flynn (argued).
Military Judge: Timothy G. Stueve
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Bridges, No. 07-0701/CG
Chief Judge EFFRON delivered the opinion of the Court.
A special court-martial composed of a military judge sitting
alone, convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas, of
insubordinate conduct toward a superior petty officer (two
specifications), wrongful use of controlled substances (three
specifications), and breaking restriction, in violation of
Articles 91, 112a, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. §§ 891, 912a, 934 (2000). The sentence
adjudged by the court-martial and approved by the convening
authority included a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120
days, and reduction to pay grade E-1. The United States Coast
Guard Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. United States v.
Bridges, 65 M.J. 531, 535 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2007).
On Appellant’s petition, we granted review of the following
issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION
WHEN HE ADMITTED PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 3 OVER
DEFENSE OBJECTION BECAUSE IT WAS EXTRINSIC
EVIDENCE OF SPECIFIC ACTS OF MISCONDUCT OFFERED
TO REBUT AN OPINION. See United States v.
Hallum, 31 M.J. 254 (C.M.A. 1990).
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
During the sentencing proceeding, the Government introduced
documentary evidence from Appellant’s personnel records showing
2
United States v. Bridges, No. 07-0701/CG
entries for abusive behavior, use of disrespectful language to a
superior petty officer, and tardiness. In addition, Appellant’s
commanding officer testified about the adverse impact of
Appellant’s insubordinate conduct and drug offenses on the
efficiency and discipline of Appellant’s command. The
Government also introduced testimony regarding the adverse
impact resulting from Appellant’s violation of his pretrial
restriction.
The defense’s sentencing case consisted primarily of
Appellant’s unsworn statement and letters offered in mitigation
from family members and acquaintances who wrote favorably of
Appellant’s character and rehabilitative potential. In the
unsworn statement, Appellant said that “I learned more about
life in the past year and the time that I’ve spent in the Coast
Guard than any other part of my life.” In addition, Appellant
requested that he not receive a bad-conduct discharge. He did
not address the subject of confinement.
When the defense offered the letters in mitigation, the
Government objected that the letters contained inadmissible
hearsay. The military judge granted a defense motion to relax
the rules of evidence during sentencing and admit the letters
into evidence. See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1001(c)(3).
In one of the letters, written on October 22, 2004, shortly
before Appellant’s court-martial, Appellant’s father stated that
3
United States v. Bridges, No. 07-0701/CG
although his son had “made some poor choices and used bad
judgment on more than one occasion,” he had “grow[n] up quite a
bit over the last several months.” Appellant’s father added
that “[t]he whole experience of being in the Coast Guard (even
in the Brig) has helped him grow and develop as a man,” and that
his son was “more squared away now than he has ever been in his
life.”
The prosecution, in rebuttal to the letter from
Appellant’s father, offered a letter to trial counsel from the
officer-in-charge of the brig where Appellant had been in
pretrial confinement since July 2004. The letter, dated
September 2, 2004, noted that Appellant had “displayed a
negative attitude while in confinement, consistently displaying
an uncooperative attitude toward Brig staff as well as appearing
to have a negative influence on his peers.” The letter
indicated that a Discipline and Review Board recently found that
Appellant had violated several prison regulations. The letter
noted that Appellant had been placed in “Desegregation” for
“Disobedience, Disrespect, Staff Harassment and Provoking words
and Gestures.”
Defense counsel objected to the admission of the letter
from the brig official, arguing that it was not proper rebuttal,
that it contained improper aggravation evidence, and that its
probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of
4
United States v. Bridges, No. 07-0701/CG
unfair prejudice. In addition, defense counsel maintained that
the brig letter could not be used to rebut the father’s letter
because it predated the father’s letter. Defense counsel
asserted that the letter from Appellant’s father did not purport
to reflect on his behavior in the brig, but instead constituted
an opinion as to “what he feels his son has gained from the
Coast Guard.” In response, trial counsel asserted that the brig
letter rebutted the impression left by the father’s letter that
Appellant’s behavior improved in the brig. The military judge
admitted the brig letter without comment.
During closing argument on sentencing, trial counsel
asserted that Appellant’s actions demonstrated a pattern of
disobedience which brought discredit on his unit, as evidenced
by the unfavorable administrative entries in Appellant’s
personnel records, the testimony regarding the adverse impact of
Appellant’s conduct, and the brig letter. Referring to the brig
letter, trial counsel argued that Appellant continued on a
“downhill course of discrediting his service and showing
disrespect. . . . Even confinement did not alter his course.”
In his sentencing argument, defense counsel characterized
Appellant’s actions as “youthful indiscretions,” noting that
Appellant was nineteen years old at the time of the offenses and
the court-martial. Defense counsel argued that Appellant would
become a valuable servicemember with additional training and
5
United States v. Bridges, No. 07-0701/CG
leadership, and emphasized that a bad-conduct discharge would
“do nothing but hurt this individual at a very young stage in
life on a permanent basis.”
Trial counsel recommended that the military judge sentence
Appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 150 days confinement, and
reduction to pay grade E-1. Defense counsel recommended a
sentence of no more than ninety days confinement and reduction
to pay grade E-2. The military judge sentenced Appellant to a
bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction
to E-1.
On appeal, the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals held
that the military judge did not err in admitting the letter from
the brig official during the sentencing phase. Bridges, 65 M.J.
at 534-35. The lower court concluded that the letter served as
proper rebuttal because it put the father’s letter “in
perspective by offering a different viewpoint” on Appellant’s
behavior. Id. at 534. The court further concluded that the
probative value of the brig letter was not outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice to Appellant. Id.; see Military Rule
of Evidence (M.R.E.) 403.
II. DISCUSSION
The granted issue asks whether the military judge erred by
admitting the letter from the brig official as rebuttal.
6
United States v. Bridges, No. 07-0701/CG
Appellant argues that a military judge commits an abuse of
discretion by allowing the Government to introduce any extrinsic
evidence of specific acts of misconduct to rebut an accused’s
presentencing character evidence. Additionally, Appellant
contends that the brig letter did not factually rebut the
father’s letter and was unfairly prejudicial because it tended
merely to allege that Appellant committed acts of uncharged
misconduct. The Government responds that the military judge
properly admitted the brig letter in rebuttal to the father’s
letter. The Government argues that the brig letter tended to
disprove or counteract the impression left by the father’s
letter regarding Appellant’s behavior in the brig, and the
probative value of the brig letter outweighed any prejudice to
Appellant.
Under Article 59(a), UCMJ, an error of law regarding the
sentence does not provide a basis for relief unless the error
materially prejudiced the substantial rights of the accused.
See Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859(a) (2000); United
States v. Griggs, 61 M.J. 402, 410 (C.A.A.F. 2005). Assuming,
without deciding, that the brig letter was erroneously admitted
over defense objection, we conclude that the alleged error was
not prejudicial under Article 59(a), UCMJ. The sentence in the
present case was adjudged by a military judge. As the
sentencing authority, a military judge is presumed to know the
7
United States v. Bridges, No. 07-0701/CG
law and apply it correctly absent clear evidence to the
contrary. United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221, 225 (C.A.A.F.
2007); United States v. Mason, 45 M.J. 483, 484 (C.A.A.F. 1997).
There is no indication that the military judge gave significant
weight to the brig violations noted in the letter from the brig
official, see United States v. Gorence, 61 M.J. 171, 174
(C.A.A.F. 2005), particularly in light of the fact that the
record contained ample additional evidence in aggravation from
Appellant’s personnel records and the testimony of witnesses.
See Griggs, 61 M.J. at 410. At oral argument, appellate defense
counsel acknowledged that, in view of Appellant’s offenses, it
was likely that a bad-conduct discharge and reduction to the
lowest enlisted grade would have been adjudged even if the
letter from the brig official had not been admitted into
evidence. In that context, the issue of prejudice on appeal
primarily involves a relatively brief period of confinement (120
days), which was only thirty days longer than the maximum amount
of confinement recommended by defense counsel.
Under these circumstances, we are confident that any error
in the admission of the brig letter did not substantially
influence the adjudged sentence. See Griggs, 61 M.J. at 410;
United States v. Boyd, 55 M.J. 217, 221 (C.A.A.F. 2001).
Appellant has not demonstrated that any error materially
prejudiced his substantial rights. See Article 59(a), UCMJ.
8
United States v. Bridges, No. 07-0701/CG
III. DECISION
The decision of the United States Coast Guard Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
9