United States v. Rappaport

SNYDER, Judge,

with whom HODGSON, Chief Judge, joins (concurring in part and dissenting):

I concur with Parts I through III of the majority opinion. However, for the reasons set forth infra, I disassociate myself *714from Parts IY through VI, and respectfully dissent.

I

The majority holds that the military judge “erred” by allowing the prosecution to call Dr. B and elicit extrinsic evidence of prior usage of marijuana. But did the military judge abuse his broad discretion? I think not. In reviewing issues arising under Mil.R.Evid. 608(b), the test is not whether we would have reached the same result…