United States v. Collier

67 M.J. 347 (2009)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Collier

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
67 M.J. 347 (2009)

Facts

Aviation Machinist’s Mate Third Class Kimberly Collier (defendant) was the tool custodian for her Navy helicopter squadron. Collier had a four-month romantic, homosexual relationship with Hospitalman Second Class C. During this relationship, Collier lived with C in C’s house. The relationship ended badly, and Collier eventually asked her command for help retrieving some of her personal belongings from C’s house. C claimed that when she went to collect Collier’s belongings, C discovered 65 tools with a code for Collier’s command etched on them. However, the tools were ordinary ones that could be purchased anywhere, and one of the tools that C returned was an etcher. Further, a visual inspection was conducted of Collier’s command’s tool cabinet shortly before C’s alleged discovery, and that inspection did not indicate that any tools were missing, let alone such a large number. Still, Collier was charged with allegedly stealing the tools from her command. While the charges were pending, Collier slashed C’s car tire. Collier admitted to the slashing and was also charged with obstructing justice by threatening a witness. At trial, Collier’s attorney claimed that C had been motivated to frame Collier for the larceny by a romantic relationship gone bad. Collier also claimed that she had slashed C’s tire due to bad feelings about the romantic relationship and not to try to threaten a witness. However, the prosecution (plaintiff) filed a motion in limine to prevent Collier’s attorney from asking C at trial about any alleged homosexual, romantic, or sexual relationship between the women. The trial judge allowed Collier’s attorney to examine C about whether the women had a particularly close friendship that had gone bad but prohibited any questions about whether the relationship was sexual, homosexual, intimate, or romantic. In closing arguments, the prosecution argued that a friendship turned sour was not a credible basis for framing someone, and Collier was convicted. Collier appealed, arguing that her Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against her had been violated because she had not been allowed to cross-examine C about the true nature of their relationship. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the conviction, and Collier appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ryan, J.)

Dissent (Baker, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership