- Free Consultation: 703-298-9562 Tap Here to Call Us
Affirmative defenses–Macdonald trailers?
No. 19-0051/AR. U.S. v. Korey B. Kangich. CCA 20170170. On consideration of the granted issue, 78 M.J. 304 (C.A.A.F. 2019), the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Kangich, No. 20170170 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sep 27, 2018) (unpublished), and the opinion of this Court in United States v. McDonald, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2019), we conclude that because the affirmative defense of mistake of fact as to consent applies only if the mistake is reasonable as well as honestly held, the military judge did not err. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
This case does not appear on ACCA’s website. LEXIS has the case number as 20170170, and CAAF granted the following issue.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN APPLYING A NEGLIGENT MENS REA TO MAKE OTHERWISE LAWFUL CONDUCT CRIMINAL.
United States v. Kangich, 78 M.J. 304 (C.A.A.F. 2019).
No. 19-0104/AR. U.S. v. Nicholas E. Davis. CCA 20160069. On consideration of the granted issue, __M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2019), the opinion of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, United States v. Davis, No. 20160069 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 16, 2018) (unpublished), and the opinion of this Court in United States v. McDonald, __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. Apr. 17, 2019), we conclude that the military judge did not err in instructing the court members that for the affirmative defense of mistake of fact as to consent to apply, the mistake must have been reasonable as well as honestly held. Therefore, it is ordered that the judgment of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby affirmed.
The ACCA unpublished opinion of 16 August 2018, ARMY No. 20160069, in “Nicholas E. Davis” is here.
I conclude the instructional issue must have been in the Grostefon?
We address two assignments of error, with multiple subparts, one of which merits relief. Appellant personally raised seven matters pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), one of which is also an assigned error. The remaining Grostefon matters, after due consideration, do not warrant discussion or relief.
United States v. Davis, No. ARMY 20160069, 2018 CCA LEXIS 417, at *2 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 16, 2018).
CAAF granted on the following issue.
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN INSTRUCTING THE PANEL THAT A NEGLIGENT MENS REA WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE OFFENSE OF INDECENT VISUAL RECORDING AND THE DEFENSE OF MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT.
United States v. Davis, 2019 CAAF LEXIS 223 (C.A.A.F. 2019).
Here’s the link to United States v. Macdonald.
Appellant was convicted of sexual assault by bodily harm on a nonconsent theory. The military judge in his case gave no specific mens rea instruction beyond the standard mistake of fact defense, which provides a defense if the accused had an honest and reasonable (nonnegligent) belief that consent was obtained. Appellant, however, contends that Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), required the military judge to instruct the members that a mens rea of at least recklessness with regard to consent was necessary for conviction. We granted review to determine the required mens rea for sexual assault by bodily harm, and conclude that Congress clearly implied a general intent mens rea for that offense.