UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Shawn T. GOLDWIRE, Airman Basic
U.S. Air Force, Appellant
No. 00-0349/AF
Crim. App. No. 32840
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued November 9, 2000
Decided June 14, 2001
CRAWFORD, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which GIERKE and EFFRON, JJ., joined. SULLIVAN and BAKER, JJ.,
each filed an opinion concurring in the result.
Counsel
For Appellant: Captain Patience E. Schermer (argued);
Lieutenant Colonel James R. Wise and Major Stephen P. Kelly
(on brief); Lieutentant Colonel Timothy W. Murphy.
For Appellee: Captain Suzanne Sumner (argued);
Colonel Anthony P. Dattilo, Lieutenant Colonel Ronald A.
Rodgers, Major Harold M. Vaught, and Major Mitchel Neurock
(on brief); Major Lance B. Sigmon and Captain Christa S.
Cothrel.
Military Judge: J. Jeremiah Mahoney
THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION BEFORE FINAL PUBLICATION.
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
Chief Judge CRAWFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
Contrary to his pleas, appellant was convicted by officer
members at a general court-martial of rape and wrongfully
possessing alcohol while under 21 years of age, in violation of
Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
10 USC §§ 920 and 934. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct
discharge and 42 months’ confinement. The convening authority
reduced the period of confinement to 24 months, but otherwise
approved the sentence. The court below affirmed. 52 MJ 731
(1999). We granted review of the following issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY PERMITTING
MASTER SERGEANT GREEN TO TESTIFY AS TO HIS OPINION
AS TO APPELLANT’S CHARACTER FOR TRUTHFULNESS.
For the reasons stated herein, we hold that the military judge
did not err by permitting Master Sergeant Green to testify as to
appellant’s character for truthfulness.
FACTS
On July 5, 1996, appellant and two of his friends, Airman B
and Airman M, invited Airman K, the female victim of the rape,
to attend a party at Airman B’s off-base apartment the following
day. Airman K had never spoken to appellant before that night.
Nevertheless, she agreed to attend the party because she thought
it would be fun.
The next morning, Airman K met appellant and his friends to
accompany them to the party. Their plan was “to go to Airman
2
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
[B’s] apartment and drink.” On the way to the party, the group
stopped at a liquor store where Airman K bought beer, a bottle
of vodka, and orange juice. The party started that morning and
continued throughout the day. At one point, Airman K went to
Taco Bell for lunch with appellant. On the way back, they
stopped at a second liquor store and purchased more alcoholic
beverages for the party. The in-party activities consisted of
drinking, listening to the radio, and playing cards and
dominoes.
During the course of the day, appellant became very
intoxicated, to the point of becoming ill. Airman K and Airman
B found appellant lying on the bathroom floor and helped him
into the bedroom. By evening, Airman B, Airman M, Airman K, and
appellant remained at the apartment. Airman B and Airman K
began to play a drinking game while Airman M watched. During
the game, Airman K consumed orange juice and vodka. After the
game, Airman K sat at one end of the couch with Airman M at the
other end, and Airman B sat in a chair. The three airmen fell
asleep. At that point, appellant was still in the bedroom.
Airman K testified that the next thing she remembered was
waking up on the bed in the bedroom with appellant on top of
her. She was naked from the waist down, and her shirt and bra
were pushed above her breasts. She said appellant’s legs were
on top of hers, and his hands were at either side of her waist.
3
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
Airman K testified that she attempted to push appellant
away when someone grabbed her wrists and pulled her arms back
against the bed. She stated that she started fighting and
screaming and telling appellant to stop, and that is when
appellant started having sex with her. She remembered appellant
having sex with her for about a minute while she was telling him
to get off of her and let her go. Airman K also testified that
she pushed appellant and he jumped off the bed. Airman K got
off the bed and put on some pants that were on the floor. She
testified that appellant tried to block her from leaving the
room, but she hit him and got outside. She headed for the guard
shack with appellant trying to get her to come back to the
apartment. Someone passing the area stopped and gave Airman K a
ride back to her squadron.
Airman K returned to her dormitory room at approximately
10:00 p.m. When her roommate opened the door, Airman K was
holding her pants with one hand and crying hysterically. After
describing what happened to her, Airman K told her roommate that
she could not believe that appellant did that to her. Airman K
was taken to the emergency room at the base hospital, where a
test taken at 1:30 a.m. on July 7, 1996, showed her blood
alcohol level to be .142.
Airman B testified for the Government under a grant of
immunity. He testified that he woke up that evening with his
4
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
hand on Airman K’s leg. He noticed that Airman M seemed to be
“half awake.” Airman B proceeded to touch Airman K’s breasts
under her clothing. Airman M did the same. Airman B then
exposed Airman K’s breasts by pushing her shirt up over her
breasts. He then unbuttoned and unzipped Airman K’s jeans. He
and Airman M proceeded to remove Airman K’s jeans and underwear.
At that point, appellant came out of the bedroom and began to
fondle Airman K’s breasts, rub her legs, and kiss her neck.
There was no initial response from Airman K, but she began to
rub appellant’s neck and back when he started to have
intercourse with her. Airman B saw Airman K wake up and tell
appellant to stop. Appellant did so. At that point, appellant
picked up Airman K and took her into the bedroom. Shortly
thereafter, Airman K left the apartment followed by appellant.
Appellant did not testify at trial. Special Agent Donald
I. Phillips was called by the Government and testified that
following a rights advisement, appellant gave an oral statement
in December, approximately five months after the incident with
Airman K. In the statement, appellant admitted having sexual
intercourse with Airman K. Appellant also stated that prior to
having sex with him, Airman K had not said anything, and her
eyes were closed. However, he claimed there were a couple of
times when his penis came out of Airman K’s vagina and she
reinserted it.
5
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
During cross-examination of Agent Phillips, defense counsel
established that a number of facts contained in appellant’s
statement were consistent with a consensual act of intercourse:
Airman K was not so intoxicated that she could not participate
in foreplay; Airman K rubbed the back of appellant’s neck prior
to sexual intercourse; twice she asked appellant to stop and he
did stop; and appellant told Agent Phillips that when they
completed having sexual intercourse, they talked.
Later, the military judge, after a timely objection by
trial defense counsel, permitted appellant’s first sergeant,
Master Sergeant (MSgt) Gary E. Green, to offer his opinion of
appellant’s character for truthfulness. MSgt Green testified as
follows:
Q. Sergeant Green, in your duties as first sergeant
have you had contacts with the accused?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And, based on those contacts with the accused,
have you been able to form an opinion as to his
character for truthfulness?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. That he is not truthful.
After admitting the opinion character evidence from
appellant’s first sergeant, the military judge gave the
following cautionary instruction to the members:
6
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
Members of the court, with regard to the testimony you
heard yesterday from Sergeant Green, Master Sergeant
Green was permitted to express his opinion of the
accused’s character for truthfulness for your
evaluation in considering the weight you’ll accord the
accused’s out of court statements as related in the
testimony of other witnesses. As defense counsel
attempted to point out in cross-examination of Master
Sergeant Green, and as I subsequently confirmed with
Master Sergeant Green after you were excused for the
day, his opinion was based solely on one instance
where the accused lied to a detail supervisor about
his whereabouts. So you should consider that fact in
determining the weight you’ll accord the opinion of
Master Sergeant Green. In any event, you may not
infer from his opinion or it’s basis that the accused
is a bad person and must therefore have committed the
offenses here charged.
Appellant contends that when trial defense counsel cross-
examined Agent Phillips about appellant’s oral statement,
appellant was merely exercising his rights under the rule of
completeness. As such, this did not put appellant’s credibility
in issue, and admission of MSgt Green’s opinion regarding
appellant’s character for truthfulness was improper. Appellant
also asserts that his statement to the investigator should not
have been admitted as hearsay, but rather, should have been
admitted as an admission by a party-opponent under Mil.R.Evid.
801(d)(2)(A), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2000
ed.).1 Consequently, his credibility was not subject to attack
under Mil.R.Evid. 806. Moreover, he argues that the probative
1
All Manual provisions are identical to the ones in effect at the time of
appellant’s trial.
7
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
value of MSgt Green’s opinion was far outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice to the appellant.
Appellant further argues that even if such character
evidence was admissible, his first sergeant lacked an adequate
foundation to offer an opinion as to appellant’s character for
truthfulness. He points out that this Court in United States v.
Toro, 37 MJ 313, 317 (CMA 1993), concluded that “[t]o lay a
proper foundation for opinion evidence, the proponent must show
that the character witness personally knows the witness and is
acquainted with the witness well enough to have had an
opportunity to form an opinion of the witness’ character for
truthfulness.” He argues that MSgt Green lacked such a
foundation.
DISCUSSION
We review the decision by the military judge to admit the
first sergeant’s opinion evidence under the abuse of discretion
standard. United States v. Johnson, 46 MJ 8, 10 (1997).
This is a case where the defense counsel attempted to
advocate his cause through the use of his client’s out-of-court
statement to an investigator. That statement contained both
exculpatory and inculpatory facts. Trial defense counsel
elicited appellant’s exculpatory statements through his zealous
cross-examination of a government witness, and in so doing,
suggested to the factfinder that the exculpatory statements
8
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
deserved more weight than appellant’s inculpatory statements.
Proper resolution of the granted issue requires us to discuss a
number of interlocking rules of evidence and theories, to
include Mil.R.Evid. 106, 304, 607, and 806, as well as the
common law rule of completeness.
1. Rule of Completeness
Mil.R.Evid. 106, the rule of completeness, which is taken
“without change” from the federal rule (Drafters’ Analysis of
Mil.R.Evid. 106, Manual, supra at A22-4), provides:
When a writing or recorded statement or part
thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse
party may require that party at that time to
introduce any other part or any other writing
or recorded statement which ought in fairness
to be considered contemporaneously with it.
The rule of completeness is a rule that governs the scope of
evidence. It particularizes the type of evidence (written and
oral), the relationship between when all or part of a written or
oral statement may be introduced, and the operation of
procedural rules.
Moreover, in Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153,
172 (1988), the Court indicated that Fed.R.Evid. 106 “partially
codified” the common law completeness doctrine. Under the
common law rule of completeness, “[t]he opponent, against whom a
part of an utterance has been put in, may in his turn complement
it by putting in the remainder, in order to secure for the
9
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
tribunal a complete understanding of the total tenor and effect
of the utterance.” Id. at 171, quoting 7 Wigmore, Evidence
§ 2113 at 653 (Chadbourn rev. 1978).
The rule of completeness must be examined in terms of the
common law rule and the authority of the judge under Fed.R.Evid.
611(a). Under either the federal or military rules version,
Rule 106 only applies to written or recorded statements.
However, under the common-law version, and at the discretion of
the judge under Rule 611(a), the rule is applicable to oral
testimony as well. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 882
F.2d 645, 650 n.5 (2d Cir. 1989).
Under Fed.R.Evid. 106 and its military counterpart, the
opponent may demand that the proponent expand the scope of
questioning and introduce the entire statement to avoid creating
a misleading impression. If the defense in this case had
required the prosecution to introduce the remainder of
appellant’s statement to Agent Phillips, that would not have
prevented the application of Rule 806, as explained below.2
Here, the defense did not require the prosecution to
introduce a part of the statement during its direct examination.
Rather than invoking Rule 106, the defense applied the common
law completeness doctrine and waited for their own stage of
2
Fed.R.Evid. 806 and Mil.R.Evid. 806 are the same. See Drafters’ Analysis of
Mil.R.Evid. 806, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2000 ed.) at A22-
57.
10
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
presentation of proof. Since the prosecution had introduced
part of the statement, the defense could introduce the
remainder, since there was no question as to its relevance.
The defense argues that since they introduced the rest of
the statement through their cross-examination of Agent Phillips,
that precluded the Government from relying on Rule 806. But had
the entire statement been introduced by the prosecution, Rule
6073 would not have precluded them, as the proponent of the
evidence, from impeaching their own witness. But as we
indicated, the judge has discretion under Rule 6ll(a)4 and Rule
4035 to exclude the evidence when its introduction may be unfair
to a party, a waste of time, or confusing to the jury.
Thus, Rule 106 permits the defense to interrupt the
prosecution’s presentation of the case as to written and
recorded statements. See, e.g., United States v. Branch, 91 F.
3d 699 (5th Cir. 1996)(some circuits have held that Rule 106 does
not apply to testimony concerning oral conversations).
It must be recognized that some states have broadened their
counterpart to Fed.R.Evid. 106 by covering all statements,
whether or not written or recorded. See Iowa R. Evid. 106;
Oregon Evid. Code, Rule 106. We need not decide this issue on
the common law rule because Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2) provides:
3
Mil.R.Evid. 607 and Fed.R.Evid. 607 are the same. Id. at A22-46.
4
Mil.R.Evid. 611(a) and Fed.R.Evid. 611(a) are the same. Id. at A22-47.
5
Mil.R.Evid. 403 and Fed.R.Evid. 403 are the same. Id. at A22-34.
11
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
If only part of an alleged admission or
confession is introduced against the accused,
the defense, by cross-examination or otherwise,
may introduce the remaining portions of the
statement.
The Drafters’ Analysis of this rule states:
Rule 304(h)(2) allows the defense to complete
an incomplete statement regardless of whether
the statement is oral or in writing. As Rule
304(h)(2) does not by its terms deal only with
oral statements, it provides the defense in this
area with the option of using Rule 106 or 304(h)
(2) to complete a written statement.
Manual, supra at A22-13. Accordingly, under the Military Rules
of Evidence, appellant’s entire statement was properly before
the factfinders.
2. Impeachment of Non-Testifying Declarant
Mil.R.Evid. 806 provides in part:
When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined
in Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E), has been
admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant
may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported,
by any evidence which would be admissible for those
purposes if [the] declarant had testified as a
witness.
By its terms, Rule 806 applies to the introduction of “a hearsay
statement, or a statement defined in Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(2), (C),
(D), or (E).”
The first part of the rule would encompass a “hearsay”
admission by appellant. When considering adoption of Rule 806,
the Senate Judiciary Committee “considered it unnecessary to
include statements contained in rule 801(d)(2)(A) and (B) -- the
12
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
statement by the party-opponent himself or the statement of
which he has manifested his adoption -- because the credibility
of the party opponent is always subject to an attack on his
credibility [sic].” S.Rep. No. 93-1277 (1974), reprinted in
1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7051, 7069 n.28. This is not a case where the
prosecution sought to introduce the accused’s inconsistent
statement under Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) or (B) for the purpose
of impeaching the accused under Mil.R.Evid. 806. In these
situations, the trial judge has the discretion under Rule 403 to
balance equities and control the introduction of evidence. See
United States v. Dent, 984 F.2d 1453, 1460 (7th Cir. 1993).
Although it was able to find no military cases that address
this exact issue, the Court of Criminal Appeals resolved that it
was not reasonable to conclude that attacks on the credibility
of the speaker’s statement are excluded merely because the
statement is admitted as made by a party-opponent. 52 MJ at
733. In so doing, the lower court relied on the rationale of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as the holdings of two
federal Circuit Courts that previously confronted the very same
issue. Id.; United States v. Shay, 57 F.3d 126, 132 (1st Cir.
1995); United States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1473 (7th Cir.
1992). We agree with both the Court of Criminal Appeals and the
First and Seventh Circuits. When the defense affirmatively
introduces the accused’s statement in response to the
13
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
prosecution’s direct examination, the prosecution is not
prohibited from impeaching the declarant under Mil.R.Evid. 806.
3. Character Evidence
Responding to appellant’s assertion that the first sergeant
lacked a sufficient basis to provide an opinion on appellant’s
character for truthfulness, the court below found as follows:
In reviewing the facts here, the evidence
demonstrates that the first sergeant’s opinion
was based on his personal knowledge that the
appellant lied to his supervisor, not
speculation. The lie involved the appellant’s
military duties and was a distinct offense under
the UCMJ. The appellant lied to his supervisor
beforehand, in order to avoid duty. The lie
occurred after the appellant was already under
investigation for rape. Under these
circumstances, we find the first sergeant was
qualified to offer an opinion concerning the
appellant’s character for truthfulness.
52 MJ at 735.
Mil.R.Evid. 405(a) permits the introduction of both
reputation and opinion type evidence. See United States v.
Breeding, 44 MJ 345, 350 (1996). To introduce this evidence, it
must be shown that the witness was a member of the community
long enough to have become familiar with the accused’s
reputation in the community, or that the witness knew the
accused long enough to have formed an opinion as to his
character. Id. Certainly, a first sergeant knew appellant long
enough to have formed an opinion as to appellant’s truthfulness.
14
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
However, Mil.R.Evid. 405(a) and (b)6 preclude the introduction of
specific acts to establish a witness’s credibility.
The unique nature of military society does not justify a
finding that a single lie would constitute an adequate basis for
opinion testimony regarding a witness’s character for
truthfulness. The standard is whether the circumstances --
including the circumstances surrounding a particular aspect of
military life -- provide a sufficient basis to conclude that a
single statement is sufficient to form an opinion as to
credibility. The first sergeant was acquainted with appellant
through his role as first sergeant and as an investigator and
could form an opinion of appellant’s character through that
exposure. In this case, before the judge allowed the witness to
testify in front of the members, he limited the testimony and
excluded the details that were used to establish an adequate
foundation.
MSgt Green testified out of the hearing of the members that
he was appellant’s first sergeant at the 338th Training Squadron,
Keesler Air Force Base. He addressed appellant’s involvement
with underage drinking at his off-post apartment. He saw
appellant numerous times, both before and after the date of the
offense, and was personally involved with appellant on at least
6
Mil.R.Evid. 405(a) and (b) are the same as Fed.R.Evid. 405(a) and (b). Id.
at A22-35.
15
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
two occasions, including disciplinary actions against appellant.
As the first sergeant, he investigated the incidents involving
appellant.
We hold that the prosecution established an adequate
foundation for the first sergeant’s opinion as to appellant’s
untruthfulness, and that the judge correctly precluded specific
instances of misconduct to be introduced to support that
opinion.
DECISION
The decision of the United States Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
16
United States v. Goldwire, 00-0349/AF
SULLIVAN, Judge (concurring in the result):
Appellant was charged with the rape of Airman Christine K in
the summer of 1996 at the off-base apartment of Airman B in
Biloxi, Mississippi. The victim testified at this court-martial,
but appellant did not. His version of what happened that night
was contained in oral statements to police investigators, which
were evidenced at trial and partially corroborated by the
testimony of Airman B. Appellant challenges on appeal, as he did
at trial, the military judge’s decision to permit the prosecution
to admit opinion testimony from Master Sergeant Green that he
(appellant) had a poor character for truthfulness. (R. 303-04)
The Government responds that, even though appellant was not a
witness at this court-martial (see Mil. R. Evid. 607 and 608(a),
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.) (a witness
may be impeached by opinion testimony on poor character for
truthfulness)), the challenged impeachment testimony was
admissible under Mil. R. Evid. 806.
The particular question before this Court is whether Master
Sergeant Green’s testimony concerning appellant’s poor character
for truthfulness was admissible under Mil. R. Evid. 806. It
states:
Rule 806. Attacking and supporting
credibility of declarant
United States v. Goldwire, 00-0349/AF
When a hearsay statement, or a statement
defined in Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C),
(D), or (E), has been admitted in
evidence, the credibility of the declarant
may be attacked, and if attacked may be
supported, by any evidence which would be
admissible for those purposes if [the]
declarant had testified as a witness.
Since no out-of-court statement by appellant’s representative,
agent or servant, or co-conspirator was admitted in this case
under Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C),(D), or (E), an obvious question
1
remains. Were “hearsay statement[s]” of appellant admitted in
this case which would allow the admission of poor character
2
opinion testimony to impeach appellant under Mil. R. Evid. 806?
Turning to the record of trial, I note that the alleged
victim testified she awoke in a bed in Airman B’s bedroom, with
appellant on top of her. (R. 206-07) She testified that someone
grabbed her wrists, and appellant proceeded to engage in sexual
1
Several Courts of Appeals have also held that Fed. R. Evid.
806 permits the impeachment of an accused whose out-of-court
statement is introduced by the Government as admissions of a
party-opponent under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) or (B). These
statements are not technically hearsay, nor otherwise expressly
permitted to be impeached under this rule. See United States v.
Shay, 57 F.3d 126, 131-32 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v.
Valesco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1473 n.5 (7th Cir. 1992). We need not
decide this question today.
2
This rule has been severely criticized because, on its face,
it allows the prosecution to place an accused’s credibility in
issue by introducing hearsay statements favoring an accused. See
Margaret M. Cordray, Evidence Rule 806 and the Problem of
Impeaching the Nontestifying Declarant, 56 Ohio St. L.J. 495,
501-02, 512-18, 542-46 (1995).
2
United States v. Goldwire, 00-0349/AF
intercourse with her despite her verbal protests and physical
resistance. (R. 208) She further stated that appellant stopped
after a minute, and she attempted to leave the room. Appellant
prevented her, but she ultimately succeeded in leaving. (R. 209)
Appellant did not testify in this case, but evidence of his
out-of-court statements was admitted which asserted that he
engaged in sexual intercourse on a couch in Airman B’s living
room with the victim, who he discovered there half-naked after a
night of heavy drinking. He also asserted that she gave him
physical encouragement (rubbed his neck) before the sexual
intercourse and physical assistance during that sexual
intercourse (reinserted his penis in her vagina). (R. 179)
Finally, he stated that he later carried the apparently
intoxicated woman into Airman B’s bedroom and then went outside
and smoked a cigar (R. 184), but he did not directly comment on
the victim’s allegation of rape in Airman B’s bedroom.
Hearsay, as defined in the military rules of evidence, is “a
statement, other than the one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove
the truth of the matter asserted.” Mil. R. Evid. 801(c).
However, it does not include admissions by a party-opponent
(i.e., criminal defendant) offered against that party. See Mil.
R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). Here, the Government first evidenced
3
United States v. Goldwire, 00-0349/AF
certain oral admissions made by appellant on December 17, 1996,
to Special Agent (SA) Phillips, i.e., that he engaged in sexual
intercourse with the victim on the night in question; he had no
verbal consent to do so; her eyes were closed until she told him
to stop; and he knew that she previously engaged in heavy
drinking. SA Phillips’ testimony was some evidence of an
admission of guilt to rape by appellant. See United States v.
Grier, 53 MJ 30 (2000) (sexual intercourse with person
incapacitated by alcohol may be considered rape). As such, it
was not hearsay (Mil. R. Evid. 801(d)), and therefore, arguably
not subject to impeachment under Mil. R. Evid. 806. But see note
1, supra.
Nevertheless, the defense adduced additional testimony from
SA Phillips concerning appellant’s statement on December 17,
1996. (R. 182-86) He testified on cross-examination that
appellant disclosed other details about this incident, i.e.,
appellant said before engaging in sexual intercourse that he
kissed the alleged victim for a period of time, and she rubbed
his neck. The defense also adduced testimony that appellant said
he forthrightly confronted the confused complainant outside the
apartment after the incident and asked her if she recalled
engaging in sexual intercourse with him, and that she physically
assisted during the sexual act. (R. 187)
4
United States v. Goldwire, 00-0349/AF
In my view, the defense was affirmatively using the evidence
of appellant’s out-of-court statements to SA Phillips for the
truth of the matters asserted in those statements. See Mil. R.
Evid. 801(c). The military judge reached the same conclusion.
(R. 304) Defense counsel also expressly made this point in his
closing argument:
The bottom line as you look at the
evidence in a number of different ways,
and the Government says that this is the
road that you’ve got to follow, this is
what all the evidence shows, there’s
another road, and perhaps a road a little
bit less traveled, that goes off of that,
and that’s a road you’ve got to go down to
look at all the evidence and say, “Well,
we’ve got some doubts here.” Go down that
road with all those doubts. Because the
bottom line, members, is what happened
that evening, yes, was unfortunate. It
was very unfortunate. And you have a case
here where you have two people
realistically who really believe what
happened. Airman Knox isn’t up here lying
to you . She’s telling you things as best
as she can remember, as best as she can
piece them together. But Airman Goldwire,
and his statements to Airman Phillips, to
the OSI, likewise is telling you he
thought he had consent, and for this 19-
year-old airman it was reasonable. Thank
you.
(R. 387)(emphasis added).
In view of appellant’s affirmative use of the out-of-court
statement for hearsay purposes, I conclude impeachment by
evidence of his poor character for trustworthiness was admissible
5
United States v. Goldwire, 00-0349/AF
under Mil. R. Evid. 806. See United States v. Bovain, 708 F.2d
606, 613 (11th Cir. 1983); see generally Cordray, note 2, supra
at 543-46, 553.
In closing, I must note my disagreement with the majority’s
discussion and use of Mil. R. Evid. 106 and the common law
doctrine of completeness to decide this case. Mil. R. Evid. 106
extends only to a “writing or recorded statement,” whereas
appellant’s case concerns a verbal statement. Moreover, Mil. R.
Evid. 101(b)(2) provides that “[i]f not otherwise prescribed in
[the] Manual,” the rules of evidence at common law may be
applicable. As noted below, a particular military rule of
evidence covers appellant’s case.
Admittedly, appellant did argue to the military judge that he
was entitled to question SA Phillips on the remaining portions of
his December statement to avoid misleading the members that it
only contained admissions helpful to the Government. (R. 186)
However, he used this evidence to exculpate himself based on the
truth of the facts asserted in those portions of the statement.
It is the use of these statements for this purpose which exceeds
the scope of the common law doctrine of completeness. See United
States v. Collicott, 92 F.3d 973, 982-83 (9th Cir. 1996)
(remaining exculpatory portions of statement containing
admissions previously evidenced by Government are inadmissible
6
United States v. Goldwire, 00-0349/AF
hearsay, even if permitted under Fed. R. Evid. 106); see
generally 7 Wigmore, Evidence § 2113 at 659-60 (Chadbourn rev.
1978).
I believe Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) is the applicable rule for
those portions of his statement used to exculpate himself, not
Mil. R. Evid. 106 or the common law rule of completeness. It
broadly states: “Completeness. If only part of an alleged
admission or confession is introduced against the accused, the
defense, by cross-examination or otherwise, may introduce the
remaining portions of the statement.” It does not have the
limitations of the common law rule of completeness. See Wigmore,
supra, and United States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1476 n.9 (7th
Cir. 1992) (evidence of remaining portion of statement not per se
admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 106 unless relevant and necessary
to explain portions of statement previously admitted).
I would hold that admission of appellant’s statements under
Mil. R. Evid. 304(h)(2) permits the introduction of impeaching
evidence under Mil. R. Evid. 806. These statements were
subsequently used by the defense for the truth of the matter
asserted in them so as to exculpate appellant. Accordingly, they
were hearsay, and their impeachment was authorized by Mil. R.
Evid. 806. See Cordray, note 2, supra at 516-17; see also United
States v. Ortega, 203 F.3d 675, 682 (9th Cir. 2000).
7
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
BAKER, Judge (concurring in the result):
While I concur in the result reached by the majority,
I write separately because I believe that reference to
Mil.R.Evid. 106 and the common law doctrine of completeness
is unnecessary for resolution of the issues in this case.
The majority suggests that the trial defense counsel relied
on the common law doctrine to elicit additional oral
statements made by appellant to Special Agent Phillips.
The majority opinion then discusses Rule 106 and its
relationship to the common law doctrine of completeness.
Rule 304 is a passing reference: “We need not decide this
issue on the common law rule because Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2)
provides….” MJ at (12). Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2) is the
more relevant rule to military practice.
Rule 106 by its express terms is limited to writings
and recorded statements. As the majority recognizes, the
rule is adopted without change from its federal
counterpart, so one can presume that the President intended
to adopt the purpose and rationale of Fed.R.Evid. 106. The
Advisory Committee’s Note to Fed.R.Evid. 106 states, “For
practical reasons, the rule is limited to writings and
recorded statements and does not apply to conversations.”
56 F.R.D. 183, 201 (emphasis added).
1
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
The language of Mil.R.Evid. 106 and Fed.R.Evid. 106
notwithstanding, the majority argues that a military judge
can fit oral statements into Rule 106 by exercising the
authority granted in Mil.R.Evid. 611 to control the mode
and presentation of evidence. However, it is unnecessary
to have a military judge fit this square peg into that
round hole since Rule 304(h)(2), on its face, expressly
allows completeness of oral statements. Unlike Mil.R.Evid.
106, there is no federal counterpart to Mil.R.Evid.
304(h)(2). Furthermore, long ago, the President recognized
the need to provide counsel an opportunity to show the
remainder of an accused’s oral or written confession or
admission when only part of it was introduced. See para.
140a, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951.
Over reliance on the common law doctrine carries with
it some potential for confusion as well. Wigmore suggests
there are certain limitations that pertain to use of the
doctrine. A significant one is that “the remainder [of the
statement] thus received merely aids in the construction of
the utterance as a whole, and is not in itself testimony.”
7 Wigmore, Evidence § 2113 at 659 (Chadbourne rev. 1978)
(emphasis added). In other words, the common law doctrine
did not contemplate substantive use of the statements used
to complete the utterance. Wigmore goes on to state, “The
2
United States v. Goldwire, No. 00-0349/AF
remainder of the utterance, regarded as an assertion of the
facts contained in it, is merely a hearsay statement, and
as such has no standing.” Id. Mil.R.Evid. 304(h)(2), on the
other hand, is specific to admissions and confessions,
which are not hearsay and are introduced precisely for
their substantive value.
In sum, the typical situation will be that encountered
by the defense counsel in this case, where the remainder of
an accused’s oral admissions are at issue. It is difficult
to believe that counsel would have been contemplating the
intricate intersection between Rule 106 and Wigmore’s
common law approach when counsel had a simple, explicit
rule of evidence close at hand.
Finally, I join Judge Sullivan in his analysis of
Mil.R.Evid. 806 and the conclusion reached.
3