nothing, so they could not be more probative than the testimony of TK. C. MIL. R. EVID. 803(2) AND STATEMENTS OF ALLEGED VICTIM TO HER MOTHER Assignment of Error III has merit. The error is not harmless. Art. 59(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 859(a). As noted earlier, according to Mrs. Knox’s testimony, upon learning that her mother would not be present for the January 1992 visit with the appellant, CK told her mother that she did not want to go because she thought the appellant was going to hurt her. Record at 28-32. This resulted in an argument between Mrs. Knox and CK which resulted in Mrs. Knox’s temper rising and CK becoming upset. Id. At this time CK told her mother that the appellant did nasty things to her. Mrs. Knox inquired as to what the nasty things were that the appellant did, an 7)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Spychala, 40 M.J. 647
holding objection to expert report made in trial court must comport with complaint asserted on appeal holding report must be made at first opportunity to make complaint privately to be admissible under mil r evid 8032 holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible holding that privately operated prisons may not be sued under the bivens doctrine