U.S. v. Schuler, 50 M.J. 254

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 120 - Rape and Carnal Knowledge Pre-2019 offenses

1. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, § 1113, Pub.L.No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 186, 462 (1996), amended Article 120, UCMJ, effective February 10, 1996, to permit an accused to raise the defense of reasonable mistake of fact to a charge of carnal knowledge; the accused has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence
2. amendments to Article 120, which permit accused to raise defense of reasonable mistake of fact to charge of carnal knowledge, retained elements of offense and did not substitute a right for the crime; thus, under general federal savings statute, 1 USC § 109, common law doctrine of abatement is not applicable and appellant is not entitled to judicial relief from his provident guilty plea

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Mistake of Fact

1. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, § 1113, Pub.L.No. 104-106, 110 Stat. 186, 462 (1996), amended Article 120, UCMJ, effective February 10, 1996, to permit an accused to raise the defense of reasonable mistake of fact to a charge of carnal knowledge; the accused has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence

Trial Stages: Appeals: Generally

1. under common law doctrine of abatement, if the act underlying a conviction is rendered no longer unlawful by a new statute during direct review, the proceedings must be terminated in favor of the appellant; this doctrine has been restricted, however, by the general federal savings statute, 1 USC § 109
2. general federal savings statute, 1 USC § 109, has been interpreted by Supreme Court to abolish common law doctrine of “abatement” to the extent that the successor statute retains the basic offense and does not substitute a right for a crime

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

1. under common law doctrine of abatement, if the act underlying a conviction is rendered no longer unlawful by a new statute during direct review, the proceedings must be terminated in favor of the appellant; this doctrine has been restricted, however, by the general federal savings statute, 1 USC § 109
2. general federal savings statute, 1 USC § 109, has been interpreted by Supreme Court to abolish common law doctrine of “abatement” to the extent that the successor statute retains the basic offense and does not substitute a right for a crime