United States v. Spata

34 M.J. 284 (1992)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Spata

United States Court of Military Appeals
34 M.J. 284 (1992)

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…

  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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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