United States v. Spata
United States Court of Military Appeals
34 M.J. 284 (1992)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Staff Sergeant Patrick F. Spata (defendant) was tried by a special court-martial after he tested positive for cocaine during a surprise sweep of his unit. Prior to trial, Spata provided investigators with a statement concerning a bar fight he had been involved in the weekend before his drug test. Spata reported that he took several miniature bottles of rum to a local bar and that an unknown Hispanic woman stole one of the bottles. Spata and the woman argued, Spata poured a glass of beer into the woman’s lap, the woman poured the bottle of rum on Spata, and a bouncer threw the woman out of the bar. Spata’s involvement in the bar fight constituted minor misconduct under military law; however, he was not charged for the misconduct, and his statement concerning the fight was not admitted into evidence at his trial. Spata later reported to a doctor that he might have ingested a drink that was spiked with cocaine. At trial, the military judge denied Spata’s motion in limine to prevent the prosecution from questioning him about the bar fight. Spata’s counsel elicited testimony from the prosecution’s expert witness that drug tests were incapable of revealing whether an individual had ingested a substance intentionally, and Spata testified that he had not used cocaine. During cross-examination, the prosecution questioned Spata about the bar fight for the purpose of demonstrating that there had been no opportunity for him to have ingested a spiked drink. The possibility of innocent ingestion was not raised until Spata’s counsel suggested during closing arguments that Spata had consumed a drink spiked with cocaine. The military judge instructed the members of the court-martial panel on innocent ingestion and offered to give them a cautionary instruction limiting the purposes for which evidence of the bar fight could be used, but Spata waived the instruction. Spata was convicted of wrongful use of cocaine, and his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Military Review. Spata appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gierke, J.)
Concurrence (Wiss, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.