## Facts

- Airman Basic Ashontia K. Harrow was tried by general court-martial with officer and enlisted members.
- She was convicted, contrary to her plea, of unpremeditated murder of her infant daughter (Article 118, UCMJ).
- She pleaded guilty to additional offenses under Articles 86, 107, 121, and 134, UCMJ, including multiple failures to go/AWOL-related misconduct, a false official statement, theft of insurance proceeds, fraud in obtaining phone services, failure to pay debts, and false claims to secure a loan.
- The adjudged and approved sentence included a dishonorable discharge, 25 years’ confinement, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
- On appeal, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals set aside one AWOL specification, otherwise affirmed the findings, and reassessed the sentence (reducing confinement and adding reduction to E-1).
- The lower court’s decision issued 1,467 days after trial adjournment, including 826 days after final briefs were filed.

## Issues

1. Whether asserted evidentiary errors (a prior consistent statement, alleged child-abuse “profile” evidence, and emotional/victim-impact testimony) required reversal of the unpremeditated murder conviction.
2. Whether there was a substantial basis in law or fact to question the providence of Harrow’s guilty plea to larceny-related and associated offenses.
3. Whether the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals lawfully reassessed the sentence after setting aside one specification, or instead should have ordered a sentence rehearing.
4. Whether post-trial and appellate delay violated due process and warranted relief, including based on the claimed effect of delay on appellate representation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the decision of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The court held that any trial evidentiary errors were either not error or were harmless/nonprejudicial under the applicable standards, including Article 59(a), UCMJ.
- The court held there was no substantial basis in law or fact to question Harrow’s guilty plea.
- The court held the lower court did not abuse its discretion in reassessing the sentence after partial relief on findings.
- The court held that, although the delay was extraordinary and facially unreasonable, Harrow did not show due-process prejudice warranting relief.

## Legal Principles

- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; where constitutional error is implicated, the test is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise relief requires material prejudice to substantial rights under Article 59(a), UCMJ.
- When an accused testifies, credibility may be impeached like any other witness, subject to limits of relevance and unfair prejudice under the Military Rules of Evidence.
- “Profile” evidence offered to show the accused matches a typical offender is improper; expert testimony may be permitted when it assists the factfinder in understanding injuries or circumstances and is otherwise admissible.
- A guilty plea is upheld absent a substantial basis in law or fact to question the plea, based on the providence inquiry and the accused’s admissions supporting each element.
- A Court of Criminal Appeals may reassess a sentence after correcting error when it can reliably determine the sentence that would have been imposed absent the error, and the reassessed sentence is not greater than what would have been imposed without the error.
- Due-process claims for post-trial/appellate delay are assessed using the Barker v. Wingo factors; even lengthy delay generally requires a record-based showing of prejudice (including impairment of appellate presentation) to warrant relief.

## Conclusion

C.A.A.F. affirmed Harrow’s murder conviction and the reassessed sentence, concluding that the contested evidentiary rulings did not warrant reversal, the guilty plea was provident, the lower court’s sentence reassessment was within its authority, and the unusually long appellate delay did not justify relief absent demonstrated prejudice.


United States v. Harrow, 65 M.J. 190 (C.A.A.F. 2007)