U.S. v. Henderson, 52 M.J. 14

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Confessions

1. where appellant couched his admissions in an exculpatory story of self-defense to military authorities in hopes of avoiding problems with the German government, there was no indication that appellant’s will was overborne and his inculpatory admissions were involuntary
2. where appellant simply indicated that he was tired of talking and wanted to continue the next day, there was no unequivocal assertion of the right to counsel or silence, which is required to invoke the bright-line rule against further police interrogation or its functional equivalent
3. appellant’s statements that he wanted both to talk to police and to see a lawyer in the morning was not an unequivocal exercise of the right to counsel so as to invoke the bright-line rule against further police interrogation or its functional equivalent

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 118 - Murder Pre-2019 offenses

1. evidence, including appellant’s admission that he stabbed the victim numerous times and other evidence indicating that victim was stabbed eight times including one time in the heart and four other times in life-threatening locations, and evidence indicating that appellant kicked the victim in the head as he lay wounded in his mother’s arms, was legally sufficient to support finding of unpremeditated murder
2. Court of Criminal Appeals did not erroneously shift the burden by indicating that the prosecution had no burden to disprove heat of passion and adequate provocation; rather, court found, relying on its factfinding powers, that the provocation itself was insufficient to undermine finding of guilty of unpremeditated murder

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Voluntariness

1. where appellant couched his admissions in an exculpatory story of self-defense to military authorities in hopes of avoiding problems with the German government, there was no indication that appellant’s will was overborne and his inculpatory admissions were involuntary

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. a panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals may reconsider and set aside its own decision without the necessity of having the initial decision reconsidered by the court sitting as a whole; this procedure for reconsideration by a panel of the court is not contrary to Article 66(a), UCMJ, is consistent with the uniform rules of procedure prescribed by the Judge Advocates General, and is recognized by judicial decision
2. Court of Criminal Appeals did not erroneously shift the burden by indicating that the prosecution had no burden to disprove heat of passion and adequate provocation; rather, court found, relying on its factfinding powers, that the provocation itself was insufficient to undermine finding of guilty of unpremeditated murder

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. CAAF will not relitigate case at appellate level, but instead will limit itself to the question whether evidence was admitted in the case which would permit a reasonable person to find appellant guilty of unpremeditated murder