Vaidik, J.
Case Summary
Just after midnight on October 9, 2011, Jim and Linda Miller were brutally attacked in their home in Goshen, Indiana. When police arrived at the home, Jim was dead in the driveway, having been stabbed at least fifty times. Linda survived with serious injuries. Although DNA evidence was collected from the home, no suspect was identified, and the case grew cold.
Seven years later, a detective at the Goshen Police Department sent the DNA evidence to a genealogy company for testing and received Winston Corbett’s name as a possible lead. Corbett, who at the time of the attack was sixteen and living with his parents less than a mile from the Millers, had recently been discharged from the United States Navy and had returned to Goshen to live with his mother. Further investigation of Corbett led law enforcement to conduct a trash search at his home, and DNA taken from that search was consistent with the DNA from the crime scene. Police then obtained a search warrant for Corbett’s DNA, and again testing revealed Corbett’s DNA was consistent with the DNA from the crime scene.
Corbett was charged with and convicted of the murder of Jim and the attempted murder of Linda and sentenced to 115 years in prison. He now appeals, raising a variety of challenges to his conviction and asserting his sentence is inappropriate. Finding no reversible error and that his sentence is not inappropriate, we affirm.
….
A. Admission of Evidence under Evidence Rule 609
Corbett next contends—and the State concedes—the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the Article 15 non-judicial punishment he received while in the Navy under Indiana Evidence Rule 609(a)(2). Specifically, Corbett argues the non-judicial punishment does not constitute a criminal conviction with which he could be impeached. Evidence Rule 609(a), which governs impeachment by evidence of conviction of a crime, provides,
For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime or an attempt of a crime must be admitted but only if the crime committed or attempted is (1) murder, treason, rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, arson, or criminal confinement; or (2) a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, including perjury.
(Emphasis added). The Indiana Supreme Court has held Rule 609 “draws a bright line at conviction[.]” Outback Steakhouse of Fla, Inc. v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65, 84-85 (Ind. 2006). Accordingly, “[a] witness may not be impeached by specific acts of misconduct that have not resulted in criminal convictions.” Palmer v. State, 654 N.E.2d 844, 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). No Indiana court has addressed whether an Article 15 non-judicial punishment constitutes a criminal conviction under Rule 609. However, we agree with both parties it does not.
“Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, military commanders can punish service personnel through judicial proceedings—taking the form of general, special, or summary courts martial—or by imposing non-judicial punishment [].” Hoffman v. State, 957 N.E.2d 992, 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). A non-judicial punishment is deemed an administrative rather than a criminal proceeding. Id.; see also Middendorf v. Henry, 425 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1976) (“Article 15 punishment, conducted personally by the accused’s commanding officer, is an administrative method of dealing with the most minor offenses.”)
This Court emphasized the administrative, rather than criminal, nature of nonjudicial punishments in Hoffman, 957 N.E.2d at 994. Hoffman was convicted of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and argued the conviction constituted double jeopardy because the military had already punished him for that conduct.5 This Court disagreed, noting Hoffman failed to show he was prosecuted by the military because his punishment may have been non-judicial, which is “administrative rather than judicial action.” Id.; see also United States v. Stoltz, 720 F.3d 1127, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (“It is well settled that, consistent with the Double Jeopardy Clause, the government may prosecute a member of the armed forces in a civilian criminal court even though he has previously received nonjudicial punishment for the same offense under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”). Courts in other jurisdictions have also concluded a non-judicial punishment does not constitute a criminal conviction. See People v. Renno, 219 N.W.2d 422 (Mich. 1974) (stating that using Article 15 actions for impeachment is prohibited).
That a non-judicial punishment does not constitute a criminal conviction is also consistent with Article 15’s legislative history, which states,
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to amend article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to give increased authority to designated commanders in the Armed Forces to impose nonjudicial punishment. Such increased authority will enable them to deal with minor disciplinary problems and offenses without resort to trial by court-martial.
Under this article commanding officers can impose specified limited punishments for minor offenses and infractions of discipline. This punishment is referred to [as] “nonjudicial” punishment. Since the punishment is nonjudicial, it is not considered as a conviction of a crime and in this sense has no connection with the military court-martial system.
S. Rep. No. 87-1911 (1962), reprinted in 1962 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2379, 2380 (emphasis added).
Therefore, our own case law, the case law of other jurisdictions, and the legislative purpose of non-judicial punishments all lead us to conclude such punishments are not criminal convictions and cannot be used to impeach witnesses under Evidence Rule 609. As such, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Corbett’s Article 15 non-judicial punishment.
….
Affirmed.
May, J., and Molter, J., concur.