Objecting to victim impact statements at court-martial

1. Overview of the Case

The case involves Sergeant Campos, who was convicted of multiple instances of domestic violence against his spouse, J.A.P.P., while stationed in Japan. His misconduct included physical abuse such as hair-pulling, pushing, striking, kicking, strangulation, and biting. The court found him guilty of three specifications under Article 128b, UCMJ.

2. Sentencing and Victim Impact Statement Controversy

• J.A.P.P. delivered an unsworn statement during sentencing, detailing the physical and emotional trauma she endured.
• Her statement included descriptions of uncharged misconduct (e.g., yelling, grabbing her arms, restricting communication).
• The defense objected, arguing these statements were improper because they did not relate directly to the charged offenses.

3. The Military Judge’s Ruling

• The judge overruled the objection, reasoning that the uncharged misconduct was part of a continuous pattern of domestic abuse and thus relevant under R.C.M. 1001(c).
• The judge clarified that these statements would be considered only in relation to the offenses for which Campos was convicted.

4. Appellate Review and Legal Analysis

• The appeal centered on whether the military judge abused discretion by allowing uncharged misconduct in the victim’s unsworn statement.
• The Court of Appeals agreed that an error occurred, as R.C.M. 1001(c)(2)(B) limits victim impact statements to the effects of convicted offenses, not general character judgments.
• However, the court found the error harmless because the improper statements did not substantially influence sentencing.

5. Legal Precedents and Implications

• The decision reinforces the principle that victim impact statements must be confined to the direct impact of charged offenses.
• It highlights the balance courts must strike between allowing victims to express their experiences and ensuring fairness in sentencing.
• The case sets a precedent that uncharged misconduct, unless directly contextualizing the impact of the convicted crimes, should be excluded from victim impact statements.

6. Conclusion

While the military judge erred in admitting certain portions of the victim’s statement, the appellate court determined it did not materially affect the sentence. This case clarifies the limits of victim impact testimony under R.C.M. 1001(c) and affirms the procedural safeguards in military justice.