United States v. Owens
1985 CMA LEXIS 13862, 21 M.J. 117 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a defendant's prior misconduct, while inadmissible to prove bad character, may be admitted during cross-examination for the limited purpose of impeaching credibility by showing a prior specific act of intentional falsehood, provided its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Mil.R.Evid. 403.
Facts:
- Gari Owens, an experienced hunter and marksman, was married to Mary Owens.
- Following a domestic quarrel on September 4, 1981, Mary Owens was driving the couple's car near their quarters at Fort Campbell.
- Gari Owens fired a 30.06 rifle equipped with a telescopic sight, and the bullet struck Mary Owens in the back, causing her death from excessive bleeding.
- Owens claimed he was examining his rifle, chambered a round, and pulled the trigger to clear the weapon, asserting his wife's death was a tragic accident.
- Previously, Owens had completed an application and personal history statement to become a Warrant Officer in the U.S. Army.
- On these forms, which were signed under affirmation, Owens omitted information about his prior civilian criminal record.
- The omitted incidents included a 1976 conviction for possession of marihuana, a 1976 conviction for carrying a pistol without a permit, and a 1976 arrest for assault and battery on his second wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Gari Owens was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer members and a military judge.
- He was found guilty of unpremeditated murder and possession of an unregistered firearm.
- The convening authority approved the sentence.
- Owens (appellant) appealed to the United States Army Court of Military Review, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Military Review affirmed the conviction.
- The United States Court of Military Appeals, the highest military court, granted review of the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the appellant improperly impeached to his substantial prejudice by questions concerning omissions of prior criminal conduct from his application for warrant officer candidate?
Opinions:
Majority - Cox, J.
No, the appellant was not improperly impeached to his substantial prejudice. The questions were permissible to challenge his credibility by showing a prior act of intentional falsehood, and with one minor exception, the evidence's probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court reasoned that while the evidence of prior crimes was inadmissible to show Owens' criminal disposition (Rule 404) or via prior convictions (Rule 609), it was admissible for the non-character purpose of proving a specific act of deceit under Rule 608(b)—namely, lying on his warrant officer application. The specific crimes were 'necessary and inseparable parts of this act of deceit' and were relevant to show the omissions were intentional, not accidental. The court applied the Rule 403 balancing test, finding the evidence had high probative value because Owens' credibility was a central, contested issue. Although there was a risk of prejudice, the judge's limiting instruction mitigated this risk. The court did find error in allowing the prosecutor to identify the victim of the prior assault as Owens' 'second wife,' as this specific detail's prejudicial effect outweighed its minimal probative value, but ultimately deemed this single error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength of the government's case.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the nuanced application of evidence rules concerning prior bad acts. It establishes that such acts, while barred for proving character or propensity, can be used for impeachment if they are integral to a separate, provable act of dishonesty. The decision reinforces the power of the Rule 403 balancing test as a gatekeeper for potentially prejudicial evidence and highlights the critical role of limiting instructions in guiding the jury's considerations. It shows that even when evidence is admitted for a permissible purpose, specific details that are unduly prejudicial may still be excluded, though such an error might be deemed harmless if the overall evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
