U.S. v. Martin, 56 M.J. 97

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility

1. the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility requires proof that at the time of the offense(s), the accused: (1) suffered from a "severe mental disease or defect" and (2) as a result, was "unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts." Art. 50a(a), UCMJ
2. an accused bears the burden of showing both elements of the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence
3. clear and convincing evidence with respect to the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility is that weight of proof which produces in the mind of the factfinder a "firm belief or conviction" that the allegations in question are true
4. the insanity defense is unusual among affirmative defenses: it is currently one of only two defenses under the UCMJ for which the accused, not the Government, bears the burden of proof at trial; the burden never shifts back to the Government to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt; and it is the only affirmative defense for which the jury is instructed to vote on a finding of fact distinct from its finding of guilt
5. shifting the burden of proof on mental responsibility to the accused does not change the standard of review or the tests for either factual or legal sufficiency
6. the distinction between findings of guilt and non-guilt findings of fact as to whether a defendant has proven lack of mental responsibility is clear from RCM 921(c)(4) – there are separate votes where the members first determine whether the prosecution proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and then decide, as a factual matter, whether the accused proved his affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence
7. the review of non-guilt, factual findings on the defense of lack of mental responsibility has been approached by applying either the "clearly erroneous" or "reasonableness" standard of review, the difference in the approaches devolving from the difference in the deference accorded to review of non-guilt findings of fact made by judges and those made by juries
8. in reviewing non-guilt findings of fact made by judges, including those on lack of mental responsibility/insanity, federal courts apply the "clearly erroneous" standard – a finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed
9. in the case of a non-guilt finding of fact by members on the question of mental responsibility, an appellate court should reject the finding on insanity only if no reasonable trier of fact could have failed to find that the defendant’s criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence – such a determination depends on whether there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the jury’s finding of fact
10. regarding the second prong of the test for lack of mental responsibility, the second prong can be established alternatively by clear and convincing evidence of an inability to (1) appreciate the nature and quality of the criminal act, or (2) appreciate the wrongfulness of the criminal act
11. regarding the second prong of the test for lack of mental responsibility, "nature and quality" have been explained to mean that the accused simply did not know what he was doing – the accused did not have mens rea because he cannot comprehend his crimes, including their consequences
12. regarding the second prong of the test for lack of mental responsibility, "wrongfulness" has been explained to mean that, although the accused may have known what he was doing, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong
13. regarding the second prong of the test for lack of mental responsibility, "wrongfulness" may be legal or moral, and the jury should be instructed on the distinction only where evidence at trial suggests that this is a meaningful distinction in the circumstances of the case; however, evidence of concealment can rebut claims of legal and moral justification, negating the need to address legal and moral justification separately
14. where the evidence at trial consisted of conflicting testimony by expert witnesses concerning the severity of appellant’s bipolar disorder, and where the members had the benefit of assessing the statements and testimony of numerous lay witnesses revealing that appellant attempted to conceal his acts, applying the "reasonableness" standard of review, and interpreting the facts in the manner most favorable to the prevailing party below, Court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found that appellant failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he suffered a complete break between reality and fantasy, or was unable to appreciate either the nature and quality of his acts or the wrongfulness of his acts, on either a legal or moral plane
15. appellant’s all-or-nothing defense with respect to lack of mental responsibility can be legally and logically relevant in proving that an accused did not appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his actions at the time of an offense; but it is up to the members to determine whether the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility applied to all, some, or none of the charged offenses

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Trial Burdens, Standards › Lack of mental responsibility

1. an accused bears the burden of showing both elements of the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence
2. clear and convincing evidence with respect to the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility is that weight of proof which produces in the mind of the factfinder a "firm belief or conviction" that the allegations in question are true

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

1. shifting the burden of proof on mental responsibility to the accused does not change the standard of review or the tests for either factual or legal sufficiency
2. the review of non-guilt, factual findings on the defense of lack of mental responsibility has been approached by applying either the “clearly erroneous” or “reasonableness” standard of review, the difference in the approaches devolving from the difference in the deference accorded to review of non-guilt findings of fact made by judges and those made by juries
3. in reviewing non-guilt findings of fact made by judges, including those on lack of mental responsibility/insanity, federal courts apply the “clearly erroneous” standard – a finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed
4. in the case of a non-guilt finding of fact by members on the question of mental responsibility, an appellate court should reject the finding on insanity only if no reasonable trier of fact could have failed to find that the defendant’s criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence – such a determination depends on whether there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the jury’s finding of fact