U.S. v. McDonald, 57 M.J. 18

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134 - Stolen Property-Knowingly Receiving, Buying, Concealing Pre-2019 offenses

1. an honest-mistake-of-fact instruction is appropriate where raised by the evidence and is a defense to buying or attempting to buy stolen property

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. even though not requested, a military judge has a sua sponte duty to give certain instructions when reasonably raised by the evidence
2. military judges have substantial discretionary power in deciding on the instructions to give
3. judge’s decision to give or not give a specific instruction, as well as the substance of any instructions given, is reviewed to determine if they sufficiently cover the issues in the case and focus on the facts presented by the evidence; the question of whether a jury was properly instructed is a question of law, and thus, review is de novo

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Affirmative defenses

1. when an affirmative defense is raised by the evidence, an instruction is required
2. an honest-mistake-of-fact instruction is appropriate where raised by the evidence and is a defense to buying or attempting to buy stolen property
3. appellant was entitled to a mistake-of-fact instruction regarding his dealings with an alleged source of stolen property; however, after considering the instructions given, in comparison to the mistake-of-fact instruction set forth in the Benchbook, Court found appellant suffered no prejudice
4. the absence of a mistake-of-fact instruction was not prejudicial, in part, because, had the instruction been given, the members would have been told that they needed to consider appellant’s age, education, and experience, along with other evidence in the case: appellant was thirty-eight years old, had nineteen-and-a-half years of active service, was in the “swap shop” business for several years, frequently bought large quantities of the same item at a time, and purportedly only paid twenty-five cents on the dollar for this merchandise
5. although the military judge did not give a mistake-of-fact instruction, the ultimate question is whether the military judge’s instructions somehow relieved the Government of its responsibility to prove appellant had actual knowledge that the goods were stolen; here, the evidence, taken as a whole, reflects a high probability that appellant must have known the goods were stolen - any ignorance this appellant may have had as to the facts was based on his failure, through deliberate avoidance, to discover the truth during the two years of his criminal dealings with A and B
6. appellant was not prejudiced by the absence of a model mistake-of-fact instruction where he contested all the elements of receiving stolen property and, despite a failure to provide model mistake-of-fact instruction, the military judge, nonetheless, adequately conveyed the essential aspects of the instructions pertinent to the circumstances of the case
7. it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the court members would have found appellant guilty even if properly (and, perhaps, redundantly) instructed on ignorance or mistake of fact; the instructions given were sufficient to make the court members aware they had to find appellant actually knew the items he was buying or attempting to buy were stolen, and appellant was convicted as a result of his own statements and actions: first, with his denial that he had ever engaged in any commercial transactions with A; second, with his implausible explanation as to why he provided B money while B was in jail; third, with his similarly implausible explanation for bailing A out of jail in October 1997; fourth, with the fact that A’s and B’s phone numbers were in his watch telephone directory; and lastly, with his suspicious actions in checking B and the deputy sheriff for wires and weapons during the military and civilian police controlled buys during April 1998

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

1. judge’s decision to give or not give a specific instruction, as well as the substance of any instructions given, is reviewed to determine if they sufficiently cover the issues in the case and focus on the facts presented by the evidence; the question of whether a jury was properly instructed is a question of law, and thus, review is de novo
2. once it is determined that a specific instruction is required but not given, the test for determining whether this constitutional error was harmless is whether it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained” - stated differently, the test is: “Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?”