CAAF grants review of Mil. R. Evid. 807 issues

On Monday, CAAF granted review of the following issues:

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE AAC'S HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF MIL.R.EVID. 807 AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE AAC'S HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF MIL.R.EVID. 807.

United States v. Czachorowski, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0379/NA (C.A.A.F. Nov. 5, 2007).

The Navy-Marine Corps Court's unpublished opinion, which briefly discusses these issues, doesn't appear to be on a publicly available web site (or LEXIS), but is on NKO. Here's the relevant discussion:

We find no merit in the appellant's contention that the military judge abused his discretion in admitting hearsay statements of the victim through her mother and grandparents under the residual hearsay exception.[n1] We conclude the military judge correctly applied the law in ruling the statements admissible under MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 807, MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2002 ed.). See Record at 154-66, 223-28, 233, 246-47, and 324-28; see also United States v. Donaldson, 58 M.J. 477, 488-89 (C.A.A.F. 2003). Similarly, we find the military judge's ruling did not violate the notice requirement of MIL. R. EVID. 807. See Record at 154. Finally, we find the victim's spontaneous statements to her mother and in response to her father were not "testimonial" in nature, and thus their admission did not violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution under the United States Supreme Court's reasoning in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

[n1] We need not discuss the appellant's sub-contention that a similar statement was erroneously admitted through an investigator's notes taken while interviewing the victim's grandfather. From our reading of the record, it appears the military judge admitted the notes for a non-hearsay purpose; that is, to show that the grandfather did not recently fabricate the purported statement after failing to mention it in his interview with the investigator. In any case, this ruling had little or no impact on the military judge's previous decisions to admit the victim's spontaneous statements through three witnesses pursuant to MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 807, MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2002 ed.).