Recently, the NMCCA decided United States v. Becker, a case about the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Appellant was charged with abusing, and then killing his wife. Pursuant to an interlocutory appeal, the NMCCA considered whether the decedent’s prior statements should be admitted under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. In a Per Curiam opinion, the NMCCA found that the military judge abused his discretion by applying the incorrect standard and remanded for further proceedings.[1] The Military Judge’s Ruling Was Incorrect Because He Applied the Wrong Standard At the lower court, the Government argued that the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing made admissible decedent’s statement about her prior abuse because (1) Appellant was responsible for her inability to testify as a witness; and (2) he murdered her with the intent to make her unavailable to testify. But, the military judge concluded that it was not “reasonably foreseeable” that Appellant would have been investigated as a result of decedent’s allegations. However, the NMCCA found that the “reasonably foreseeable” standard was too narrow because it only focused on the subjective intent of the accused to make a witness unavailable to testify. In contrast, the Court applied the Giles standard, which is (1) more inclusive; and (2) consistent with the intended purpose of the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Specifically, it considers (1) the accused’s desire to prevent a witness from testifying in a potential criminal trial; and (2) the accused’s desire to prevent the alleged victim from reporting domestic abuse as it is happening. Accordingly, the Court found that the military judge abused his discretion by applying the wrong standard and remanded in light of this decision. [1] Judges Gaston, Stephens and Stewart decided the issue. James Taglienti & Luke AlterSenior Intern & Intern
Brenner M. Fissell
7/28/2020 06:09:59 pm
I confess that’s the first time I’ve heard a “reasonably foreseeable” test referred to as “subjective.”
Ryan
7/29/2020 04:31:24 pm
That's because the post misstates what the court held. The NMCCA noted that the "reasonably foreseeable" test put "an objective gloss on an inquiry that is fundamentally directed at the subjective intent of the party..." In other words, per the NMCCA, the trial judge err'ed because he applied an objective standard (reasonably foreseeable) to determine a subjective intent. Comments are closed.
|
Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -Current Term Opinions ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA Joint R. App. Pro. Global MJ Reform LOC Mil. Law Army Lawyer Resources Categories
All
Archives
April 2022
|