United States v. Clark, NMCCA No. 202400217 (N-Marine Corps Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2025) unpublished opinion

1. Charges and Sentence

Accused: Hospital Corpsman Petty Officer First Class (E-6) Anthony M. Clark, U.S. Navy.

Charges (UCMJ):

• Article 112a, UCMJ – Wrongful use of a controlled substance: Eight specifications alleging wrongful use of methamphetamine and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
• Article 121, UCMJ – Larceny: Three specifications of larceny (details of property not summarized in opinion excerpt).

Sentence: Adjudged by a Special Court-Martial on 9 July 2022 at Naval Base San Diego:

• Reprimand.
• Reduction to E-1.
• Forfeiture of $1,200 pay per month for 12 months.

2. Issue Presented

Appellant raised three primary assignments of error on appeal:

1. Confrontation Clause: Whether admission of evidence through testimony of a surrogate drug lab expert violated the Sixth Amendment.
2. Military Rule of Evidence 803(6) – Business Records: Whether the military judge abused her discretion by admitting urinalysis documents as business records.
3. Unanimity of Verdict: Whether the military judge violated the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict from the members.

3. Analysis of the Opinion

A. Confrontation Clause (Sixth Amendment)

• Standard of Review:
  • Waiver: de novo.
  • Forfeited objections: plain error.
  • Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if constitutional error.
• Key Analysis Points:
  • Appellant failed to timely object to testimonial hearsay in forensic lab reports; waiver applies.
  • Forfeited objection to surrogate expert testimony (Dr. Foxtrot) under Smith v. Arizona (602 U.S. 779 (2024)) considered under plain error.
  • Court rejected argument that surrogate expert testimony was impermissible testimonial hearsay; the expert testified on lab standards, procedures, and chain of custody based on personal knowledge.
  • Machine-generated data and chain of custody not testimonial under settled precedent.
• Harmless Error:
  • Even if any portion of testimony could be construed as unconfronted testimonial hearsay, the Government showed any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, considering strength of evidence and cumulative nature of testimony.

B. Business Records (Mil. R. Evid. 803(6))

• Standard of Review: Abuse of discretion.
• Foundation Met:
  • Urinalysis testing registers (Prosecution Exhibits 8 and 11) were computer-generated and regularly maintained.
  • Ms. Bravo, former urinalysis program coordinator and records custodian, testified to how records were prepared, stored, and maintained, satisfying Mil. R. Evid. 803(6) foundation requirements.
  • Court rejected challenge to witness’s knowledge, relying on United States v. Garces, 32 M.J. 345 (C.M.A. 1991): a qualified witness must be generally familiar with record-keeping practices.

C. Unanimity of Verdict

• Appellant’s claim regarding unanimity was deemed without merit under United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and subsequent controlling precedents United States v. Anderson, 83 M.J. 291 (C.A.A.F. 2023); United States v. Matias, 25 M.J. 356 (C.M.A. 1987).

4. Primary Law Used

Statutory Authority:

• Uniform Code of Military Justice: Articles 112a (wrongful use of controlled substances), 121 (larceny), Articles 59 and 66 (appellate review authority).

Constitutional Law:

• Sixth Amendment – Confrontation Clause; application of Smith v. Arizona (602 U.S. 779 (2024)).

Military Rules of Evidence:

• Mil. R. Evid. 803(6) – Business Records Exception.

Precedent:

• United States v. Dillenburger, 85 M.J. 599 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2025) (similar urinalysis confrontation analysis).
• United States v. Garces, 32 M.J. 345 (C.M.A. 1991) (business records foundation).
• United States v. Blazier, 69 M.J. 218 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (machine-generated data not testimonial).

Conclusion and Expert Perspective

In United States v. Clark, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals carefully evaluated constitutional confrontation rights, evidentiary foundation for business records, and unanimity principles against established military and civilian precedent. The court’s analysis reflects rigorous application of Confrontation Clause jurisprudence post-Smith v. Arizona, and confirms that proper foundational testimony and strategic objections are critical in urinalysis and forensic evidence cases.

At Cave & Freeburg, our team possesses deep experience litigating complex evidentiary and constitutional issues at both court-martial and appellate levels. We provide targeted advocacy on confrontation rights, hearsay exceptions, and rule-of-law defenses grounded in UCMJ practice and Supreme Court precedent—ensuring disciplined representation throughout trial and review.