United States v. Maebane

• Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
• Decided: June 7, 2022
• Docket: 202200118
• Status: Published

Opinion

Before HOLIFIELD, DEERWESTER, and HACKEL Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

In Re S. W. Hospital Corpsman Second Class (E-5), U.S. Navy Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES Respondent

No. 202200118

Edmond A. MAEBANE, III Hospital Corpsman Second Class (E-5), U.S. Navy Real Party in Interest

Decided: 7 June 2022

Review of Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus

Military Judge: Stephen F. Keane

For Petitioner: Lieutenant Cayla R. Barbour, JAGC, USN In Re S. W., NMCCA No. 202200118 Opinion of the Court

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

PER CURIAM: The real party in interest [RPI], Hospital Corpsman Second Class [HM2] (E-5) Edmond A Maebane, USN, is charged in the general court-martial, United States v. HM2 Edmond Maebane, USN, with discharging a weapon that killed another service member in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Jus- tice [UCMJ]. The court-martial proceedings were scheduled to reconvene on 6 June 2022. On 3 June 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Stay of Proceedings with this Court. On 6 June 2022, this Court ordered the proceedings stayed until 8 June 2022, and that Government produce all motions, rulings, record of proceedings, and any other documentation relevant to the Petition no later than 1700 (PDT) on 6 June 2022.

I. DISCUSSION

“As the writ is one of the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal, three conditions must be satisfied before it may issue.”1 First, there is no other ade- quate means to attain the relief desired; second, the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable; and third, the issuing court, in its discretion, must be satisfied that the issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circum- stances.2 Petitioner contends that the military judge failed to conduct a full analysis under Military Rule of Evidence [M.R.E.] 513, prior to allowing the admission of evidence obtained from Petitioner’s mental health treatment records absent a valid waiver from Petitioner. Applying the three-part test enumerated above, we find Petitioner has demonstrated an entitlement to the extraordinary remedy requested. First, af- ter reviewing the record provided by the Government in this case, we are not

1 Cheney v. United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (internal citations and quotation omitted). 2 Id. at 380–81 (internal citations omitted).

2 In Re S. W., NMCCA No. 202200118 Opinion of the Court

satisfied that the military judge conducted the full analysis required by M.R.E. 513. Second, Petitioner has shown his claimed right to a writ is clear and un- disputable. And, third, we are convinced issuance of the requested writ is proper.

II. CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of the Petition and all accompanying documentation, the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus is GRANTED, and it is, by the Court, this 7th day of June 2022, ORDERED: That, at any stage of the proceeding, prior to any reference to any evidence derived from Petitioner’s mental health records, the military judge shall con- duct the complete analysis required by M.R.E. 513 with written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FOR THE COURT:

KYLE D. MEEDER Clerk of Court