## Facts

- Staff Sergeant Patrick F. Spata (U.S. Air Force) was tried by special court-martial for wrongful use of cocaine under Article 112a, UCMJ, after a surprise unit urinalysis reported a positive result for cocaine.
- Before trial, Spata gave investigators a statement describing events at a local bar the weekend before the drug test.
- In that statement, Spata said he brought several miniature bottles of rum to the bar and that an unknown Hispanic woman stole one of the bottles.
- Spata reported that he argued with the woman, poured a glass of beer into her lap, the woman poured a bottle of rum on him, and a bouncer removed the woman from the bar.
- The bar incident amounted to minor misconduct under military law, but Spata was not charged for it, and his pretrial statement about the incident was not admitted as an exhibit at trial.
- Spata later told a doctor that he might have unknowingly ingested cocaine by drinking a beverage that had been “spiked.”
- Before Spata testified, the defense moved in limine to prevent the prosecution from questioning him about the bar incident; the military judge denied the motion.
- At trial, defense counsel elicited testimony from the government’s expert that the drug test could not show whether ingestion was intentional or unintentional.
- Spata testified and denied using cocaine.
- On cross-examination, the prosecution questioned Spata about the bar incident to show there had been no realistic opportunity for someone to spike his drink with cocaine.
- The defense did not clearly present innocent ingestion as a theory until closing argument, when counsel suggested Spata consumed a drink spiked with cocaine.
- The military judge instructed the panel on innocent ingestion and offered a cautionary instruction limiting how the members could use the bar-incident testimony; Spata affirmatively waived the limiting instruction.
- Spata was convicted. The Court of Military Review affirmed, and Spata appealed to the United States Court of Military Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the military judge erred by permitting the prosecution to cross-examine Spata about an uncharged bar-fight incident to rebut a claim that his positive urinalysis could have resulted from innocent ingestion.
2. Whether the failure to give a limiting instruction regarding the bar-incident testimony required relief when the military judge offered such an instruction and the defense waived it.

## Decision

- The United States Court of Military Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that allowing cross-examination about the bar incident fell within the military judge’s discretion because the questioning was directed at testing the plausibility of Spata’s suggestion that he unknowingly ingested cocaine through a spiked drink.
- The court treated the bar-incident inquiry as tied to the government’s burden to prove “wrongful” use (knowing, conscious ingestion), rather than as an attempt to prove guilt by showing bad character through unrelated misconduct.
- The court found no basis for reversal based on the absence of a limiting instruction where the judge offered an appropriate cautionary instruction and the defense affirmatively declined it.
- Any potential prejudice from the bar-incident testimony did not warrant setting aside the findings in light of the purpose and use of the cross-examination, the instructions given on innocent ingestion, and the defense waiver of the limiting instruction.

## Legal Principles

- In an Article 112a drug-use case, the prosecution must prove the use was “wrongful,” which includes proof of knowing and conscious ingestion; a positive urinalysis may be met with a claim of innocent ingestion.
- When an accused testifies and suggests a factual scenario consistent with innocent ingestion, the prosecution may cross-examine on surrounding events to test credibility and to challenge whether the scenario realistically supports unknowing ingestion.
- Evidence of uncharged misconduct is improper if offered only to show character or a propensity to commit crimes, but it may be permissible when offered for a legitimate, case-specific purpose such as rebutting a claimed mechanism of innocent ingestion, subject to judicial control of scope and unfair prejudice.
- A military judge may reduce the risk of misuse of such evidence by giving a limiting instruction that confines the members’ consideration to the permitted purpose; when the defense waives an offered limiting instruction, that waiver weighs heavily against appellate relief based on the lack of the instruction.

## Conclusion

*United States v. Spata* upheld a trial judge’s decision to allow cross-examination about an uncharged bar incident because it directly tested the accused’s claim that his positive cocaine urinalysis could have resulted from an unknowingly consumed, spiked drink, and the court declined to grant relief based on the absence of a limiting instruction where the defense expressly waived the instruction the judge offered.


United States v. Spata, 34 M.J. 284 (1992)