2014 (September Term)

United States v. Torres, 74 M.J. 154 (an accused cannot be held criminally liable in a case where the actus reus is absent because the accused did not act voluntarily, or where mens rea is absent because the accused did not possess the necessary state of mind when he committed the involuntary act). 

(automatism is defined as action or conduct occurring without will, purpose, or reasoned intention, behavior carried out in a state of unconsciousness or mental dissociation without full awareness, and the physical and mental state of a person who, though capable of action, is not conscious of his or her actions; automatism is sometimes referred to as an unconsciousness defense). 

(in the military justice system, neither epilepsy nor automatism has been held to be a mental disease or defect; therefore, the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility under RCM 916(k)(1) is not applicable in those instances). 

(in cases where the issue of automatism has been reasonably raised by the evidence, a military judge should instruct the panel that automatism may serve to negate the actus reus of a criminal offense).  

2013 (September Term)

United States v. MacDonald, 73 M.J. 426 (a defense is reasonably raised when some evidence, without regard to its source or credibility, has been admitted upon which members might rely if they chose).  

2009 (September Term)

United States v. Maynulet, 68 M.J. 374 (it is well settled in civil and military law that mistake of law is generally not a defense to criminal conduct; RCM 916(l)(1) provides that ignorance or mistake of law, including general orders or regulations, ordinarily is not a defense; there are a few narrow exceptions to the general rule; one such exception exists when the mistake results from reliance on the decision or pronouncement of an authorized public official or agency; however, reliance on the advice of counsel that a certain course of conduct is legal is not, of itself, a defense; in civilian practice, this defense is more generally stated as a reasonable reliance upon an erroneous official statement of the law). 


(in a defense of entrapment by estoppel situation, the government is rightly barred from obtaining a conviction because the government - through its representatives acting in an official capacity - is responsible for the defendantís inability to know that his conduct was proscribed; in this case, there was no evidence in the record to support a claim that there was an official decision, pronouncement, or interpretation, later determined to be erroneous, upon which appellant could have reasonably relied or that could have formed the basis of a claim of estoppel).


Home Page |  Opinions & Digest  |  Daily Journal  |  Scheduled Hearings  |  Search Site