Us V Collier 27 M. J. 806 Case Study
Phillip Rimmer
Case Brief
10/24/10
1. Citation
United States v. Collier, Jr. 29 M.J. 365 (1990) 2. Parties.
United States, Appellee
Sergeant William H. Collier, Jr., United States Army, Appellant 3. Facts 1. The court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. 2. The court of Military Review misapplied the test established by
United States v. Brenizer, 20 M.J. 78 (CMA 1985) 3. Prosecution fails to properly utilize procedures to introduce evidence. 4. Prior Proceedings/ Procedural History
25th Infantry Division (Light)
Special Court Martial, Convicted in violation of Articles 86, 91, 92 of the UMCJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886,891 and 892 (1982) United States v. Collier, Jr., 27 M.J.806 (A.C.M.R. 1988), …show more content…
which affirms conviction of the Special Court Martial. 5. Issue (s) 1. Admissibility to evidence of prior convictions. a. Did the lower court follow the legal guidelines of Mil R. Evid. 405(b) 6.
Holdings
This court holds that charges 1 and 2 and the sentences within the stated charges are reversed. The findings of guilty, to charges 1 and 2 are set aside. For charge 3 it is remanded back to the Court of Military Review. 7. Reasoning
This court questions the reasoning of the lower courts. The main issue the court address is that of the evidence that was admitted by the lower courts. With that main issue there are sub-issues that are also addressed. The lower court misapplies the rule that test the admissibility of evidence. Even with the instruction form the judge the members of the court could use the information for an improper purpose. Under Mil.R.Evid 404(b) evidence is not admissible to prove the character of the accused. Under Mil.R.Evid.609 a prior conviction offered for impeachment must be introduced by cross-examination or by extrinsic evidence. By allowing this evidence there is no evidence that there is an effect on charge 3.By allowing this wrongfully admitted evidence it opens the door to a prejudice effect in which concludes that charges 1 and 2 be vacated and charge 3 remanded for further actions. 8. Disposition
Vacated, failure to go and willful disobedience
convictions
Affirmed dereliction of duty
Remanded
9. Analysis
Since there might be a prejudicial effect I would agree that the charges that may be affected be dismissed without prejudice. The other charge I agree that it should be remanded with instructions.
Case Brief
10/24/10
1. Citation
United States v. Collier, Jr. 29 M.J. 365 (1990) 2. Parties.
United States, Appellee
Sergeant William H. Collier, Jr., United States Army, Appellant 3. Facts 1. The court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. 2. The court of Military Review misapplied the test established by
United States v. Brenizer, 20 M.J. 78 (CMA 1985) 3. Prosecution fails to properly utilize procedures to introduce evidence. 4. Prior Proceedings/ Procedural History
25th Infantry Division (Light)
Special Court Martial, Convicted in violation of Articles 86, 91, 92 of the UMCJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886,891 and 892 (1982) United States v. Collier, Jr., 27 M.J.806 (A.C.M.R. 1988), …show more content…
which affirms conviction of the Special Court Martial. 5. Issue (s) 1. Admissibility to evidence of prior convictions. a. Did the lower court follow the legal guidelines of Mil R. Evid. 405(b) 6.
Holdings
This court holds that charges 1 and 2 and the sentences within the stated charges are reversed. The findings of guilty, to charges 1 and 2 are set aside. For charge 3 it is remanded back to the Court of Military Review. 7. Reasoning
This court questions the reasoning of the lower courts. The main issue the court address is that of the evidence that was admitted by the lower courts. With that main issue there are sub-issues that are also addressed. The lower court misapplies the rule that test the admissibility of evidence. Even with the instruction form the judge the members of the court could use the information for an improper purpose. Under Mil.R.Evid 404(b) evidence is not admissible to prove the character of the accused. Under Mil.R.Evid.609 a prior conviction offered for impeachment must be introduced by cross-examination or by extrinsic evidence. By allowing this evidence there is no evidence that there is an effect on charge 3.By allowing this wrongfully admitted evidence it opens the door to a prejudice effect in which concludes that charges 1 and 2 be vacated and charge 3 remanded for further actions. 8. Disposition
Vacated, failure to go and willful disobedience
convictions
Affirmed dereliction of duty
Remanded
9. Analysis
Since there might be a prejudicial effect I would agree that the charges that may be affected be dismissed without prejudice. The other charge I agree that it should be remanded with instructions.