Three-step process for analyzing sentencing matter presented by the prosecution per RCM 1001(b):
- Does the evidence fit one of the enumerated categories of RCM 1001(b)?
- Evidence inadmissible under one theory (e.g., prior conviction under 1001(b)(4)) may be admissible under another theory (e.g., personnel record under 1001(b)(2)). See e.g. , United States v. Ariail , 48 M.J. 285 (1998); United States v. Douglas , 57 M.J. 270 (2002); United States v. Gogas , 58 M.J. 96 (2003).
- Is the evidence in an admissible form? United States v. Bolden , 34 M.J. 728 (N.M.C.M.R. 1991).
- Is the probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the members, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence? MRE 403. See United States v. Zengel , 32 M.J. 642 (C.G.C.M.R. 1991); United States v. Martin , 20 M.J. 227 (C.M.A. 1985).