## Facts

- Airman Basic Shawn T. Goldwire was tried by a general court-martial and convicted of rape (Article 120, UCMJ) and underage alcohol possession (Article 134, UCMJ).
- The prosecution introduced testimony from an AFOSI agent recounting Goldwire’s out-of-court admission that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant.
- On cross-examination, the defense elicited additional portions of Goldwire’s same out-of-court statement indicating the complainant participated and the encounter was consensual.
- Although Goldwire did not testify, the prosecution called Master Sergeant Green to give opinion testimony that Goldwire had a character for untruthfulness.
- The military judge admitted Green’s testimony over defense objection; the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the military judge erred by allowing opinion testimony that the accused had a character for untruthfulness to impeach the accused’s credibility as a declarant after the defense elicited additional portions of the accused’s out-of-court statement under the rule of completeness.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed.
- The court held the military judge did not err in allowing opinion testimony about Goldwire’s character for untruthfulness.
- The court concluded the defense used the additional portions of Goldwire’s statement as substantive evidence (functionally hearsay), allowing impeachment of Goldwire’s credibility as a declarant under M.R.E. 806.

## Legal Principles

- The rule of completeness (including M.R.E. 106 and M.R.E. 304(h)(2)) serves fairness by preventing misleading, out-of-context presentation of statements; it is not a device to present an accused’s version without credibility testing.
- When a party introduces a declarant’s out-of-court statements for their truth, the statements operate as hearsay even if elicited during cross-examination.
- Under M.R.E. 806, once hearsay is admitted, the declarant’s credibility may be attacked with any impeachment evidence that would be admissible if the declarant testified.
- Opinion or reputation evidence of a declarant’s character for untruthfulness is a permissible impeachment method when M.R.E. 806 applies.

## Conclusion

Because the defense relied on favorable portions of the accused’s out-of-court statement as true evidence of consent, the accused became impeachable as a hearsay declarant, and the government could attack his credibility through opinion testimony about his character for untruthfulness under M.R.E. 806.


United States v. Goldwire, 55 M.J. 139 (C.A.A.F. 2001)