United States v. RosarioMartinez

This opinion is subject to revision before publication. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _______________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Jonatan O. ROSARIOMARTINEZ, Corporal United States Marine Corps, Appellant No. 25-0102 Crim. App. No. 202300154 Argued November 19, 2025—Decided June 2, 2026 Military Judges: Ryan C. Lipton (arraignment), Benjamin A. Robles (motions), and Adam J. Workman (trial and post-trial) For Appellant: Captain Katherine Malcolm, USMC (argued). For Appellee: Lieutenant Erin H. Bourneuf, JAGC, USN (argued); Major Mary Claire Finnen, USMC, and Brian K. Keller, Esq. (on brief); Colonel Iain D. Pedden, USMC. Judge HARDY delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Judge OHLSON, Judge SPARKS, and Judge JOHNSON joined. Judge MAGGS filed a sep- arate opinion concurring in the judgment. _______________  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court Judge HARDY delivered the opinion of the Court. The Government charged Appellant with two specifica- tions of sexual assault under Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920. A general court- martial consisting of an eight-member panel with enlisted representation acquitted Appellant of the first specification but found Appellant guilty of the second specification. Based on information learned during a “hot wash” session1 with the senior panel member, Captain (Capt) Sierra, Ap- pellant’s military trial defense counsel came to believe that Appellant’s panel misunderstood how nonunanimous ver- dicts and hung juries work in the military justice system and erroneously thought that a minimum of six votes were required to convict or to acquit Appellant on each charge. Appellant’s defense counsel obtained an affidavit from Capt Sierra affirming this misunderstanding and further stating that the panel initially conducted several rounds of voting where three or more members voted to find Appel- lant not guilty of the second specification. The affidavit went on to state that if the members had properly under- stood the voting rules, Capt Sierra would have filled out the findings worksheet to reflect findings of not guilty for both specifications. After obtaining Capt Sierra’s affidavit, Appellant’s de- fense counsel filed a post-trial motion asking the military judge to correct the verdict pursuant to Rules for Court- Martial (R.C.M.) 922 and 1104. After receiving briefs from both parties and conducting a post-trial Article 39(a) hear- ing, 2 the military judge issued a written ruling declining to consider Capt Sierra’s affidavit and denying Appellant’s motion. The United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of 1 A hot wash is a term used by military personnel for an in- formal, post-trial meeting between participants in a court-mar- tial to review the high and low points of the proceedings. United States v. RosarioMartinez, 85 M.J. 535, 540 n.11 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2024). 2 See Article 39(a), 10 U.S.C. § 839(a) (authorizing hearings outside the presence of the members for specific purposes). 2  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) affirmed. RosarioMartinez, 85 M.J. at 545. On appeal to this Court, we specified the following issue: Did the military judge err in finding the affidavit of the senior member to be incompetent evidence under MRE 606(b)(2)(C) and in denying Appel- lant’s motion for appropriate relief to correct an error in the findings worksheet? United States v. RosarioMartinez, 85 M.J. 463 (C.A.A.F. 2025) (order granting review). For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the mili- tary judge did not abuse his discretion when he declined to consider Capt Sierra’s affidavit after finding that it was not competent evidence. We therefore affirm the findings and sentence as affirmed by the NMCCA. I. Background The Government charged Appellant with two specifica- tions of sexual assault under Article 120, UCMJ, following the victim’s report that Appellant had assaulted her in her barracks room after the two had gone out drinking to- gether. The two specifications were pleaded in the alterna- tive based on contingencies of proof. The first specification was charged under the theory that Appellant performed a sexual act upon the victim when he knew or reasonably should have known that she was asleep. The second speci- fication was charged under the theory that Appellant per- formed a sexual act upon the victim without her consent. A. Appellant’s Court-Martial Appellant’s general court-martial consisted of eight members with enlisted representation. Following the presentation of evidence, the military judge instructed the members on voting, including the following: The concurrence of at least three-fourths of the members present when the vote is taken is re- quired for any finding of guilty. Since we have 3  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court eight members, that means six members must concur in any finding of guilty. If you have at least six votes of guilty of any offense, then that will result in a finding of guilty for that offense. If fewer than six members vote for a finding of guilty, then your ballot resulted in a finding of not guilty. You may reconsider any find- ing prior to its being announced in open court. However, after you vote, if any member expresses a desire to reconsider any finding, open the court and the president should announce only that a consideration of a finding has been proposed. (Emphasis added.) Neither party objected to the instruc- tions or requested any additional instructions. The military judge did not provide a written copy of the voting instruc- tions to the panel. The panel deliberated for two days. On two separate oc- casions, the members requested to reopen the court-mar- tial, but neither of these occasions concerned questions about the findings worksheet or the panel instruction on voting. After the panel reached a verdict, the military judge reviewed the findings worksheet and asked Capt Sierra to announce the panel’s findings. Capt Sierra stated that the court-martial found Appellant not guilty of the first speci- fication, but guilty of the second specification—sexual as- sault without consent—under Article 120, UCMJ. After Appellant elected to be sentenced by the military judge, the military judge excused the panel and instructed the mem- bers not to discuss their deliberations with anyone unless ordered to do so by a court. That same day, the military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge and eighteen months of confinement. B. Capt Sierra’s Affidavit In the days following trial, Appellant’s two defense counsel conducted a hot wash with Capt Sierra, the senior panel member, to receive feedback on their advocacy. Dur- ing the conversation, Capt Sierra asked how the military justice system handles hung juries. Appellant’s counsel ex- plained to Capt Sierra that hung juries do not exist in the 4  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court military, and that when fewer than three-quarters of the panel vote to convict, the result is an acquittal. Upon hear- ing this, Capt Sierra said “ ‘[w]ell, then we acquitted your client’ ” or words to that effect. Capt Sierra further told Ap- pellant’s counsel that the panel had conducted multiple votes in the absence of any vote to reconsider—several of which rendered fewer than six votes for guilty—before the panel finally reached six votes in favor of finding Appellant guilty of the second specification. At this point, Appellant’s counsel ended their conversation with Capt Sierra and sought guidance from their supervisors. After being encouraged by their supervisors to seek ad- ditional information from Capt Sierra, Appellant’s counsel met with Capt Sierra again the next day. At this second meeting, Capt Sierra executed an affidavit describing what he had shared with defense counsel the day before. The af- fidavit stated that: (1) the members had a mistaken under- standing of the military judge’s instructions and believed that six votes were required either to convict or to acquit Appellant; (2) several rounds of votes had been taken by the panel using secret ballots with three or more members voting to find Appellant not guilty of the second specifica- tion; and (3) if the members properly understood the voting rules, Capt Sierra would have filled out the findings work- sheet to reflect findings of not guilty for both specifica- tions. 3 The affidavit ended with a request by Capt Sierra to “correct the findings worksheet to accurately reflect the correct findings of the panel.” C. Appellant’s Motion for Appropriate Relief A few days after his defense counsel obtained the affi- davit, Appellant filed a motion for appropriate relief assert- ing that the finding of guilty announced by Appellant’s court-martial was erroneous. In his motion, Appellant asked the military judge to correct the alleged error in the members’ findings worksheet as revealed by Capt Sierra. 3 A redacted copy of the affidavit is attached to this opinion in the Appendix. 5  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court Although Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 606(b)(1) gen- erally prohibits a military judge from receiving a member’s affidavit about the panel’s deliberations, Appellant argued that Capt Sierra’s affidavit qualified as competent evi- dence that the military judge could consider under the rule’s exception for testimony about a mistake in entering the findings on the findings form. See M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C). Appellant further argued that the military judge had the authority to correct the error on the findings form under both R.C.M. 922 and R.C.M. 1104. After the Government filed a written response in opposition to Appellant’s motion, the military judge conducted an Article 39(a) hearing to address Appellant’s motion for appropriate relief and a second unrelated motion. The military judge declined Appellant’s request to produce Capt Sierra to provide sworn testimony, but he did hear argument on the motion from both parties. Eleven days later, the military judge issued a written ruling denying Appellant’s motion. The military judge held that he could not consider Capt Sierra’s affidavit pursuant to M.R.E. 606 because it was a forbidden inquiry into the panel’s deliberative process and did not fall under any M.R.E. 606(b) exception. The military judge concluded that the specific M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) exception asserted by Ap- pellant applied to “clerical errors” and was therefore not implicated by the statements in the affidavit. The military judge emphasized that: (1) the senior member provided a copy of the findings worksheet to the military judge at the conclusion of deliberations; (2) the worksheet was filled out correctly and indicated a finding of guilty for the second specification; and (3) the senior member responded affirm- atively to the military judge’s question whether the work- sheet accurately reflected the members’ findings. Assuming arguendo that the affidavit or Capt Sierra’s sworn testimony would be proper evidence for the court’s consideration, the military judge further held that the evi- dence would still be improper to impeach the findings 6  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court under R.C.M. 923. 4 The military judge determined that the findings were proper on their face and that under R.C.M. 923 voting irregularities would not be a proper ba- sis to impeach the findings. The convening authority took no action on the findings and approved the sentence. Appellant appealed to the NMCCA but did not challenge the military judge’s ruling on his motion for appropriate relief. 5 In his petition to this Court, Appellant raised three issues and supplemented his petition with a single issue pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). This Court declined to grant review of any of those issues, but specified the fol- lowing issue for review: Did the military judge err in finding the affidavit of the senior member to be incompetent evidence under MRE 606(b)(2)(C) and in denying Appel- lant’s motion for appropriate relief to correct an error in the findings worksheet? RosarioMartinez, 85 M.J. at 463 (order granting review). II. Discussion A. Preservation of the M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) Issue Before we can consider the specified issue, the Govern- ment raises a threshold question that we must address. Noting that Appellant failed to challenge the military judge’s denial of his motion for appropriate relief before the NMCCA, the Government argues that the military judge’s ruling is now “law of the case” and that Appellant should 4 R.C.M. 923 states: “Findings that are proper on their face may be impeached only when extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the attention of a member, outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any member, or unlawful command influence was brought to bear upon any member.” 5 On appeal before the NMCCA, Appellant asserted two as- signments of error: “(1) whether unlawful command influence (UCI) occurred during the members’ deliberations; and (2) whether Appellant was entitled to a unanimous verdict.” Ro- sarioMartinez, 85 M.J. at 538. 7  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court be bound by the military judge’s decision. Although the Government concedes that the law-of-the-case doctrine is discretionary, the Government argues that this case does not involve the kind of “manifest injustice” that this Court has previously recognized as justifying a departure from our usual practice. Because this Court specified the issue whether the mil- itary judge erred when he denied Appellant’s motion for appropriate relief, the Government’s objection is really a question about this Court’s authority to specify and ad- dress the issue more than it is a question about whether Appellant waived the issue or should be estopped from rais- ing it before this Court. When questions arise about our authority and the answers are not specified by the UCMJ, this Court typically turns to the Supreme Court for guid- ance about federal appellate courts’ authority to review an issue. See B.M. v. United States, 84 M.J. 314, 317 (C.A.A.F. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 984 (2024) (discussing the limitations that this Court places on its own authority to act as a prudential rather than a legal matter). To answer the Government’s question, we look to the Supreme Court’s practice with respect to its analogous “pressed or passed upon” jurisprudence. When the Su- preme Court exercises its appellate jurisdiction over the in- ferior federal courts, it is settled practice that the Supreme Court generally will not consider issues “not pressed or passed upon” by the court below even when the court oth- erwise has jurisdiction. McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U.S. 430, 434 (1940). However, this practice is prudential, and the Supreme Court reserves dis- cretion to address issues not pressed or passed upon by the court below in “exceptional cases.” Id. In most cases, the Supreme Court declines to address issues not pressed or passed upon below. See, e.g., Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 468 n.12 (1983) (declining to address an issue that was not raised below because it was not an exceptional case); United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405, 416-17 (2001) (same); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 237 (1990) (same), holding modified by City of 8  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court Littleton, Colo. v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (2004); FTC v. Grolier Inc., 462 U.S. 19, 23 n.6 (1983) (same); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 147 n.2 (1970); Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 362 n.16 (1958) (same); Blair v. Oesterlein Mach. Co., 275 U.S. 220, 225 (1927) (same); Duignan v. United States, 274 U.S. 195, 200 (1927) (same). But in “exceptional circumstances,” the Supreme Court has departed from its usual practice. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 551 n.5 (1980) (citing Youakim v. Miller, 425 U.S. 231, 234 (1976); Duignan, 274 U.S. at 200). For example, in Carlson v. Green, the Supreme Court addressed a question on the merits that was not raised at either the district court or the court of appeals. 446 U.S. 14, 17 n.2 (1980). Although the Supreme Court recognized it normally does not decide issues not presented below, it also noted that it was not precluded from doing so. Id. In Carl- son, where “the issue [was] squarely presented and fully briefed,” the Supreme Court decided to exercise its discre- tion to address the “important, recurring issue” on the mer- its in the interest of judicial administration. Id. In this case, neither party contests this Court’s jurisdic- tion over this case under Article 67(a)(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(3) (2024). Having found good cause to consider whether the military judge erred by denying Appellant’s motion for appropriate relief, this Court specified the M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) issue, which was then fully briefed and argued by the parties. Although we agree with the Govern- ment that we could—and normally would—decline to an- swer that question on the grounds that it was not pressed or passed upon by the NMCCA below, we believe that this is an exceptional case that warrants departure from our general practice. In this case, Appellant’s defense counsel investigated and preserved the M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) issue immediately upon meeting with Capt Sierra. The issue was fully briefed by both parties and litigated before the military judge who issued a nine-page written ruling denying Appellant’s mo- tion. Neither party has suggested that their ability to 9  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court litigate the case before this Court has been prejudiced in any way by the fact that Appellant failed to raise the issue before the NMCCA. Similarly, our review of the issue has not been inhibited by the fact that the issue was not pressed or passed upon below. Considering that this case addresses the military justice system’s unique application of nonunanimous verdicts and involves a claim of critical importance—whether the findings worksheet accurately reflected the findings of the panel—we exercise our discre- tion to depart from our usual practice and address the issue on the merits. B. Whether the Military Judge Erred by Denying Appellant’s Motion for Appropriate Relief 1. Standard of Review This Court applies principles of statutory construction when construing the Military Rules of Evidence and re- views questions of statutory construction de novo. United States v. Kohlbek, 78 M.J. 326, 330 (C.A.A.F. 2019). When a verdict’s validity is challenged, a military judge has broad discretion to determine whether to investigate the verdict and, if so, what kind of investigation to perform. United States v. Lambert, 55 M.J. 293, 295-96 (C.A.A.F. 2001). This Court reviews those decisions only for abuse of discre- tion. Id. at 296. A military judge “abuses his discretion when his findings of fact are clearly erroneous, the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law, or the military judge’s decision on the issue at hand is outside the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law.” United States v. Kelly, 72 M.J. 237, 242 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. Discussion The military judge denied Appellant’s motion after de- termining that Capt Sierra’s affidavit was not competent evidence that the military judge could consider under M.R.E. 509 and M.R.E. 606 because no exception under M.R.E. 606(b)(2) applied. M.R.E. 509 instructs that panel deliberations “are privileged to the extent that such 10  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court matters are privileged in trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts” except as provided in M.R.E. 606. Turning to M.R.E. 606(b)(1), that rule gener- ally prohibits members from testifying about the panel’s deliberations, including “any statement made or incident that occurred during the deliberations” or “any member’s mental processes concerning the finding or sentence.” The rule also bars a military judge from “receiv[ing] a member’s affidavit or evidence of a member’s statement on these mat- ters.” Id. These prohibitions are subject to three exceptions under M.R.E. 606(b)(2), which permit member testimony about whether: (A) extraneous prejudicial information was im- properly brought to the members’ attention; (B) unlawful command influence or any other outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any member; or (C) a mistake made in entering the finding or sentence on the finding or sentence forms. The third exception was added to the rule in 2013. See Exec. Order No. 13,643, 78 Fed. Reg. 29559 (May 15, 2013) (adding M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C)). To date, this Court has yet to formally consider the new exception’s scope. Appellant argues that the M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) excep- tion applies to the facts of this case because—as explained in Capt Sierra’s affidavit—the panel members misunder- stood the voting procedures and thus made a “mistake” (as contemplated by M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C)) when they completed the findings worksheet by marking “guilty” when they had initially voted to find Appellant “not guilty.” Appellant con- tends that the exception’s plain language allows for testi- mony in these circumstances, which Appellant describes as “a failure to properly memorialize the outcome of the ini- tial, valid vote.” We disagree. M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) permits testimony about “a mistake made in entering the finding” on the appropriate form. The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States does not provide 11  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court any additional guidance about the exception’s application. In such circumstances, the President has directed that courts-martial apply “the Federal Rules of Evidence and the case law interpreting them.” M.R.E. 101(b)(1). Accord- ingly, when this Court previously considered M.R.E. 606’s exceptions in United States v. Loving, 41 M.J. 213, 239 (C.A.A.F. 1994), this Court looked to Fed. R. Evid. 606 and the corresponding Advisory Committee Notes for guidance about the scope of M.R.E. 606 and its exceptions. In Loving, the appellant sought to introduce affidavits obtained from three members nearly four years after his court-martial was held alleging that the panel failed in multiple ways to follow the military judge’s instructions during sentencing deliberations. Id. at 232. This Court held that members’ post-trial affidavits were not competent ev- idence as to any improper voting procedures during the sentencing deliberations. Id. at 236-39. This Court recog- nized that M.R.E. 606 and Fed. R. Evid. 606 were “identi- cal” other than the military rule’s reference to unlawful command influence. Id. at 235. This Court further noted that this construction “is consistent with the statutory mandate in Article 36(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 836(a),” which empowers the President to promulgate procedures that “ ‘apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence gen- erally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.’ ” Id. As we did in Loving, we look again to the federal rule and the Advisory Committee Notes for guidance about the scope of the analogous federal exception. In addition to be- ing the approach recommended by M.R.E. 101(b)(1), doing so is consistent with the President’s actions in 2016, when he amended the Military Rules of Evidence to bring them into greater alignment with the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Manual for Courts-Martial; Amendments to Appendix 22, 81 Fed. Reg. 15278-01, 15289 (Mar. 22, 2016). Fed. R. Evid. 606 was amended in 2006 to allow judges to consider evidence about “a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict form.” Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(3) advisory committee note to the 2006 amendment. Seven 12  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court years later, the President added M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) to the list of exceptions in the military rule. See Exec. Order No. 13,643, 78 Fed. Reg. 29559 (May 15, 2013). Today, M.R.E. 606(b) remains essentially identical to Fed. R. Evid. 606(b), except for minor changes to accommodate court-martial terminology. The Advisory Committee Note addressing the 2006 amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(3) instructs that the rule was amended in direct response to “a divergence be- tween the text of the Rule and the case law that has estab- lished an exception for proof of clerical errors.” Fed. R. Evid. 606 advisory committee note to the 2006 amendment (citing Plummer v. Springfield Term. Ry., 5 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993) (holding “that juror testimony regarding an al- leged clerical error, such as announcing a verdict different than that agreed upon, does not challenge the validity of the verdict or deliberation of mental processes, and there- fore is not subject to Rule 606(b)”); Teevee Toons. Inc. v. MP3 Com. Inc., 148 F. Supp. 2d 276, 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (noting that Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) was previously silent re- garding inquiries designed to confirm the accuracy of a ver- dict)). The Note clarified that the exception was to be nar- row—that testimony concerning “clerical errors” committed while entering findings in the findings work- sheet triggers the exception, but testimony pertaining to misunderstandings about the consequences of the jury’s re- sults or the misapplication of instructions are explicitly prohibited because they pertain to the jurors’ mental pro- cesses. 6 Id. 6 Part of the Advisory Committee Note for the 2006 amend- ment reads “[t]he broader exception [for allowing proof of mis- takes in entering the verdict] is rejected because an inquiry into whether the jury misunderstood or misapplied an instruction goes to the jurors’ mental processes underlying the verdict, ra- ther than the verdict’s accuracy in capturing what the jurors had agreed upon.” Id. The Note further explains that the amend- ment’s exception “is limited to cases such as where the jury fore- person wrote down, in response to an interrogatory, a number different from that agreed upon by the jury, or mistakenly stated 13  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court Here, Capt Sierra’s affidavit fails to identify any evi- dence of a clerical mistake being made when he entered the panel’s findings on the findings worksheet. Instead, the af- fidavit documents the panel’s alleged misunderstanding and misapplication of the military judge’s instructions for voting during deliberations. Thus, this case would seem to fall squarely within the Advisory Committee’s guidance that forbids testimony challenging the jury’s misapplica- tion of the judge’s instructions. Nevertheless, Appellant urges us to adopt an expansive interpretation of M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) and follow the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s approach in United States v. Dotson, where that court held that the dis- trict court did not err when it heard testimony from the jury foreman about the jury’s deliberations and then cor- rected the verdict to show that the defendant was acquit- ted—rather than found guilty—of a single count. 817 F.3d 1127, 1130 (5th Cir. 1987). We decline Appellant’s invita- tion for three reasons. First, as Appellant concedes, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Dotson was issued decades before the addition of the ex- ception for clerical errors to Fed. R. Evid. 606(b). Thus, it provides little insight into the application of the current federal rule, and even less into the scope of M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C). Second, in Dotson, the judge did not consider any testi- mony from the jurors about how the jury reached its ver- dict. The jurors only stated that the verdict announced in court did not match their actual vote. Here, Capt Sierra’s affidavit does not even mention the panel’s final vote. In- stead, it focuses on the early stages of the panel’s delibera- tions and the panel’s misunderstanding of the military judge’s instructions. that the defendant was ‘guilty’ when the jury had actually agreed that the defendant was not guilty.” Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 14  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court And finally, unlike the jury in Dotson, Appellant does not contest that the verdict announced at his trial accu- rately reflected the ultimate determination of the panel. In Dotson, the jury had to consider fourteen criminal counts: ten against Dotson and four against his co-defendant. 817 F.2d at 1128-29. The announced verdict found Dotson guilty of all ten counts against him, but according to the jury foreman and two other jurors, the announced verdict did not reflect the jury’s vote with respect to count ten. Id. They stated that the jury voted unanimously to acquit Dot- son of count ten rather than find him guilty. Id. Thus, the verdict form contained a clerical error because it did not accurately reflect their vote. In this case, even if the affidavit is construed in the light most favorable to Appellant, Loving, 41 M.J. at 239, it falls short of suggesting that the announced sentence is not what was actually agreed upon by the panel. Appellant ar- gues that there was a mistake in the panel’s process, not that the announced verdict failed to accurately represent the panel’s final determination. Appellant may be correct that the panel could have—or even should have—stopped their deliberations after their first secret vote, but they did not stop. The panel continued deliberating and, ultimately, at the conclusion of those deliberations, the court-martial voted to find Appellant guilty of Specification 2. Unlike in Dotson, there is no suggestion that the verdict announced in court did not reflect the panel’s final vote or their ulti- mate intention to find Appellant guilty of Specification 2. We agree with the military judge that the exception un- der M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) should be construed narrowly and did not apply to the error alleged by Appellant in this case. Accordingly, the military judge did not abuse his discretion when he determined that the affidavit did not fall under the M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) exception and was, therefore, not competent evidence. Because he could not lawfully consider Capt Sierra’s affidavit, the military judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied Appellant’s motion for appropri- ate relief. 15  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Opinion of the Court III. Conclusion For the reasons cited above, we affirm the findings and sentence as affirmed by the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. 16  $33(1',;  
 
   
 
 !*', ,  , (, , %)%+,, 
,
,% ", #%$&,  

 
 895p0†9¢š}89‡¢„9~0p’Ÿ¢€@¢„9‡k˜Ž¢ & !¢ž1¢X9¢9~[€†¢{9|49‡¢[}¢X9¢†\0q¢€<¢.+¢œ¢„p¢*€0‡[€|0‡’]}9¡  ™‡[~V¢79p^49‡0’[€}¢ž9¢ž9†9¢}€¢„‡€œ^797¢0¢ž†[’9}¢5€„Ÿ¢€=¢X9¢„‡€597š‹0r¢^}’‹š5‘\€}¢J‡ œ€’^~V  '’¢ž0¢€š†¢š~89‡’0~8[}V¢X0’¢^}¢€‡79‡¢’€¢†905X¢0¢œ9‡7_5¢ž9¢}99898¢9[‘X9†¢¢œ€’:¢^}¢Lœ€†¢€> V˜[rŸ¢€†¢¢œ€’9¢[~¢D3œ€†¢€<¢}€‘¢Vš^p‘Ÿ¢T†¢4€X¢„95\Ge50’^€}  /9¢50rp98¢K‚†¢0¢œ€‘9¢0¢r90‘¢¢’]|9 
/9¢œ€‘98¢˜`}V¢95†9‘¢ž‡[‘9}¢41rr€  ,X9¢Hfˆ‘¢œ€“9¢žX9†9¢0yr¢|9|49†¢ž9‡9¢895]898¢X28¢¢€‡¢|€†9¢|9{49†¢œ€9¢\~¢E3œ€ˆ¢€?¢~€’¢VšarŸ D†¢4€’X¢„95[F\50‘[€~¢-X0“¢œ€’9¢ž0¢5€|„r998¢š]~V¢95†9‘¢ž†b‘9~¢40rp€  ’¢}€¢”^|9¢„†]€‡¢‘€¢’X[¢œ€‘9¢8\8¢ž9¢X0œ9¢¢€†¢|€†9¢|9|49‡¢œ€’9¢^}¢F3œ€†¢€<¢Vš^r–Ÿ¢’€¢9]’X9† „95[M50[€~  /9¢[~5€95rŸ¢7^8¢}€‘¢5€|„r9‘9¢’Y9¢N~7[}V¢ž€†nX99’¢0U9†¢905X¢Dg}8^}V¢X0¢ž€šs7¢X0œ9 †9šr97¢^~¢0¢}€‘¢Vš^pŸ¢œ9‡8]5’¢4950š9¢ž9¢8^8¢~€•¢49t[9œ9¢ž9¢Z08¢ˆ905X98¢‘X9¢‡9 ˜^†98¢}˜|49‡¢€@ œ€9¢F‚‡¢0¢Ih~7\}V¢€<¢}€‘¢Vš\r’Ÿ  +[~59¢Y9¢c|9¢X9¢[}5€‹†95¢Fe~8[}V¢ž€‡lX99‘¢ž0¢‡907¢0u€š7¢[}¢€„9~¢5€˜ˆ—
¢"¢X09¢r90‡~97¢X0‘¢# X€™p8¢X0œ9¢Ferr97¢€š¢X;¢O}7[~V¢ž€†mX99¢5€~^9}’¢ž^‘X¢X9¢P‡¢œ€’9¢€A¢‘X9¢„0~9r¢žXd5X ‡9›v‘97¢[~¢0¢Di~8^}V¢€A¢}€’¢Vš[wŸ¢’€¢4€‘X¢„95^Q50‘^€~ () ¢ 08¢ž9¢n~€ž~¢Y9¢„†€„9‡¢„‰ƒ597š‰9¢ž9¢ž€šp7¢X0œ9¢Rpr98¢€™‘¢’Z9¢Dj~8[}V¢ž€†nX99’¢5€†‡95’rŸ¢‘€¢ ‡9’šŒ¢0¢S~8[}V¢€B¢}€‘¢Vš^p’Ÿ ¢  $¢ž€˜p7¢x^n9¢‘€¢5€†‡95’¢’X9¢Fi~7]~V¢ž€‡oX99’¢”€¢055™Š09r ¢‡9Dz95¢X9¢5€†‡95¢Ee~8\}W¢€C¢X9 „0~9r  %¢50¢49¢‡906X97¢œ\0¢9{0[r¢0’¢ 1 

1 % 1 "&$+1 /"*!1,"1!1+.+'1#(11-+1
 1 "1 )!1 1 1 "01 1 2  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment. The specified issue in this case is: “Did the military judge err in finding the affidavit of the senior member to be incompetent evidence under [Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.)] 606(b)(2)(C) and in denying Appellant’s motion for appropriate relief to correct an error in the findings worksheet?” The Court answers the specified issue in the negative and therefore affirms the findings and sentence in this case. I agree that the findings and sentence in this case should be affirmed, but my reasoning is different. I am per- suaded by the Government’s argument that the Court should not reach the merits of the specified issue because Appellant abandoned the issue when he did not raise it in his appeal to the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA). I therefore respectfully con- cur only in the judgment of the Court and do not concur in the Court’s opinion. I. Discussion The Court correctly states the key facts relevant to this appeal. Appellant moved the military judge for appropriate relief on the basis of an affidavit by a member of the court- martial indicating that the members had not followed ap- plicable voting rules when they found him guilty of one specification of sexual assault. The Government opposed the motion, arguing that M.R.E. 606(b) prevented the mil- itary judge from considering the member’s affidavit. M.R.E. 606(b)(1) provides that “a member of a court-mar- tial may not testify about any . . . incident that occurred during the deliberations of that court-martial” and that the “military judge may not receive a member’s affidavit . . . on these matters.” In a written ruling, the military judge denied relief based on M.R.E. 606. In so doing, the military judge recog- nized that M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C) creates an exception that al- lows a member to testify about whether “a mistake was made in entering the finding or sentence on the finding or sentence forms.” But the military judge ruled that this ex- ception did not apply. Rather, the military judge found “that the affidavit from the senior member produced by the  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment defense [was] an inquiry into the deliberative process.” The affidavit was therefore incompetent evidence and “the court [was] foreclosed from considering matters that oc- curred during the members’ deliberative process.” Appellant appealed to the NMCCA, raising two issues. Issue I was: “Did unlawful command influence occur dur- ing deliberations where the members discussed the Marine Corps and [Sexual Assault Prevention and Response] poli- cies that any consumption of alcohol renders a person una- ble to consent to sexual activity and that alleged sexual as- sault victims have to be believed?” Issue II was: “Was Appellant entitled to a unanimous verdict?” In his brief, Appellant described the military judge’s ruling on his mo- tion for appropriate relief, but he did not argue that the military judge had erred by not considering the member’s affidavit under the exception in M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C). On the contrary, every time Appellant mentioned the voting procedures, his arguments concerned the asserted unlaw- ful command influence or his right to a unanimous verdict. The NMCCA, accordingly, did not rule on the challenge now presented under M.R.E. 606(b)(2)(C). United States v. RosarioMartinez, 85 M.J. 535, 541-42 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2024). The Court also correctly states the law concerning the abandonment of issues on appeal. The United States Su- preme Court has explained that “[o]rdinarily an appellate court does not give consideration to issues not raised be- low.” Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556 (1941). But the Supreme Court has qualified this general principle by recognizing that “[t]here may always be exceptional cases or particular circumstances which will prompt a reviewing or appellate court, where injustice might otherwise result, to consider questions of law which were neither pressed nor passed upon by the court or administrative agency below.”1 Id. at 557. 1 Another exception is the “cross-appeal doctrine” described in United States v. Am. Ry. Exp. Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 (1924). The cross-appeal doctrine is the “familiar principle of appellate practice . . . that ‘[a]n appellee . . . may defend the judgment be- low on a ground not earlier aired.’ ” United States v. Perkins, 78 2  United States v. RosarioMartinez, No. 25-0102/MC Judge MAGGS, concurring in the judgment This Court has adopted the same general principle and qualification. In Uni