United States v. Frazier

Summary

The court reviewed convictions for offering violence to a superior commissioned officer, disrespect, and willful disobedience. It held that prior convictions for housebreaking and grand larceny were admissible for impeachment under Military Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), while possession of marihuana was inadmissible but harmlessly waived by the failure to object. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the offering-violence conviction and directed correction of the promulgating order to state that no previous convictions were considered.

Holdings

1. Convictions for housebreaking, grand larceny, and possession of marihuana do not automatically qualify under Military Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2) merely because they are criminal convictions; the phrase "dishonesty or false statement" is limited to offenses involving an element of untruthfulness, deceit, or falsification bearing on the likelihood that the accused will testify untruthfully.
2. The housebreaking and grand-larceny convictions were admissible under Rule 609(a)(1), and the absence of an explicit on-the-record balancing finding did not require reversal because defense counsel failed to make a specific, timely objection and affirmatively declined to object.
3. Admission of the prior marihuana-possession conviction was error because it satisfied neither Rule 609(a)(1) nor Rule 609(a)(2), but the error was waived by the failure to make a timely and specific objection and did not constitute plain error.
4. The evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that Frazier offered violence against Captain Houston by intentionally committing an act that placed her in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.
5. A promulgating order may reflect an accused's prior civilian or military convictions, but it may not state that convictions introduced before findings were considered by the military judge during presentencing proceedings. The order was corrected to state: "(No previous convictions considered)."

Questions Presented

1. Whether Frazier's prior civilian convictions for housebreaking, grand larceny, and possession of marihuana were admissible to impeach his credibility under Military Rule of Evidence 609.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for offering violence against a superior commissioned officer under Article 90, UCMJ.
3. Whether the general court-martial promulgating order could reflect that the military judge considered Frazier's prior civilian convictions.

Disposition

affirmed