## Facts

- Sergeant Michael W. Clemons, serving as charge of quarters (CQ), entered an unlocked barracks room, removed a television, and placed it in the CQ office.
- Clemons also removed a cassette player from a barracks latrine and took it to the CQ office.
- Clemons admitted taking both items but asserted he did so as part of his CQ responsibilities to secure property and to teach occupants to lock their door.
- The government charged Clemons with wrongful appropriation, larceny, and unlawful entry under the UCMJ.
- Before trial, the prosecution moved to exclude defense character evidence.
- The military judge permitted character evidence of trustworthiness but excluded evidence of good military character and character for lawfulness.
- Clemons was convicted; the convening authority approved the findings; the Court of Military Review affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under M.R.E. 404(a)(1), good military character and character for lawfulness were “pertinent” traits in a prosecution for wrongful appropriation, larceny, and unlawful entry where the defense contested criminal intent.
2. Whether the military judge abused discretion by allowing only “trustworthiness” character evidence while categorically excluding good military character and lawfulness evidence supporting the defense theory.

## Decision

- The Court of Military Appeals held the military judge’s restriction on character evidence was erroneous.
- The court ruled that good military character and law-abiding character could be pertinent under M.R.E. 404(a)(1) on the facts presented.
- The court reversed the decision below and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Under M.R.E. 404(a)(1), an accused may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait to support an inference of innocence.
- “Pertinent” is not confined to a narrow, element-by-element fit; in courts-martial, good military character and lawfulness may bear on intent and whether conduct conformed to military standards of duty, obedience, and respect for property.
- A military judge may control the scope of character evidence, but may not artificially narrow admissible traits by permitting only one label (e.g., “trustworthiness”) while excluding closely related traits that are relevant to the defense theory.
- When the case turns on state of mind, erroneous exclusion of defense character evidence supporting the absence of criminal intent may be prejudicial and not harmless.

## Conclusion

The court held that, in a property-offense court-martial where the accused claimed he acted pursuant to duty rather than with intent to steal, M.R.E. 404(a)(1) allowed introduction of good military character and lawfulness evidence, and the trial judge’s categorical exclusion of those traits warranted reversal and remand.


United States v. Clemons, 16 M.J. 44 (C.M.A. 1983)