U.S. v. Riley, 58 M.J. 305

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Of Courts of Criminal Appeals

1. a lower court’s authority on remand is limited by the limitations and conditions prescribed by the remand

First Principles: Jurisdiction: Of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. the timely filing of a petition for review vests jurisdiction in CAAF and divests the CCA of jurisdiction to reconsider its decision; CAAF may, however, return jurisdiction to the lower court by a remand

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. an appellate court violates due process if it affirms an included offense on a theory not presented to the trier of fact

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 119 - Manslaughter Pre-2019 offenses

1. culpable negligence is a degree of carelessness greater than simple negligence; culpable negligence is a negligent act or omission accompanied by a culpable disregard for the foreseeable consequences to others of that act or omission; an objective test is applied in determining whether the consequences of an act are foreseeable
2. we are not satisfied that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that appellant’s negligence rose to the level of culpable negligence, i.e., a culpable disregard for the foreseeable consequences to her baby; an experienced medical professional would be aware of the potential for an explosive and unexpected birth, sufficient to suddenly propel the baby onto the hard floor, and consequently would be likely to foresee death as a consequence of appellant’s acts; this case, however, does not involve an experienced medical professional; instead, it involves an inexperienced, immature lay person, giving birth for the first time; we do not believe that a reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant culpably disregarded the likelihood of the sudden and explosive birth of her baby and her baby’s death as a consequence of her acts; thus, we hold that the evidence in this case was legally insufficient to support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter in violation of Article 119, UCMJ, because a reasonable could not find a culpable disregard for the foreseeable consequences to others beyond a reasonable doubt

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134 -- Negligent Homicide Pre-2019 offenses

1. simple negligence is the absence of due care, that is, an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care of the safety of others which a reasonably careful person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances
2. the CCA concluded that appellant’s delivery of her baby while sitting on a toilet with nothing beneath her but a hard ceramic tile floor was the specific act of negligence that was the proximate cause of the baby’s death; once the CCA reached a legal conclusion that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of fact and law to establish appellant’s negligence as the proximate cause of death, it was not necessary for the court to make any further determination as to the specific cause of death
3. appellant realized while she was in the bathroom that she was about to give birth; she was in sufficient control of her mental and physical faculties to remove her clothing and shoes; knowing that childbirth was underway, she chose to sit on the toilet seat; based on these facts, we hold that a reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that it was negligent for appellant to position herself on the toilet seat instead of on the floor, where the danger of injury to her baby would have been lessened; we further hold that a reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant’s negligence played a material role in the victim’s decease; thus, we hold that the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction of negligent homicide in violation of Article 134, UCMJ
4. we reject appellant’s argument that the failure of the doctors to diagnose appellant’s pregnancy was an intervening proximate cause of the baby’s death sufficient to relieve appellant of criminal liability; even if the doctors negligently failed to diagnose appellant’s pregnancy, their negligence was, at best, a contributing cause; they did not intervene between appellant’s negligent birthing and the ultimate death of her baby; even if appellant did not know that she was in labor when she went into the bathroom, she admitted that she saw the baby’s head emerge while she was sitting on the toilet; after she realized that she was giving birth, she chose to remain in a position that significantly increased the danger to the baby; notwithstanding any negligence by the doctors before she went into labor, her lack of due care for the safety of her baby, once labor began, played a material role in the victim’s decease

Trial Stages: Appeals: Remedies › Rehearing

1. the court members considered a maximum sentence including life imprisonment but imposed a term of 25 years; the maximum term of confinement is now three years; the offense has been reduced from an intentional killing to an act of simple negligence resulting in death; in light of the dramatic change in the penalty landscape in this case, we do not believe that an appellate court can reliably determine what sentence the members would have imposed; we conclude that the only fair course of action is a sentencing rehearing

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

1. the test for legal sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; legal sufficiency is a question of law, reviewed de novo

Miscellaneous Matters: Multiplicity and Lesser Included Offenses: Lesser Included Offenses

1. negligent homicide in violation of Article 134 is a lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter