U.S. v. Collins, 60 M.J. 261

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility

1. RCM 909 provides that no person may be brought to trial by court-martial if that person is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the defense of the case; mental capacity is a question of fact and will be presumed unless the contrary is established by a preponderance of the evidence
2. lack of mental responsibility is an affirmative defense that must be raised and proven by an accused by clear and convincing evidence; an accused is presumed to be mentally responsible at the time of the alleged offenses until the accused establishes by clear and convincing evidence that he was not mentally responsible at the time of the alleged offenses
3. RCM 706(a) provides that if it appears to any commander who considers the disposition of charges, or to any investigating officer, trial counsel, defense counsel, military judge, or member that there is reason to believe that an accused lacks mental responsibility for any offense charged or lacks capacity to stand trial, that fact and the basis of the belief or observation shall be transmitted through appropriate channels to the officer authorized to order an inquiry into the mental condition of the accused; the submission may be accompanied by an application for a mental examination under RCM 706
4. the purpose of the RCM 706 sanity board is to determine if an accused lacks capacity to stand trial or lacks mental responsibility for any offense charged
5. a military judge may order a mental examination of the accused regardless of any earlier determination by the convening authority
6. the Rules for Courts-Martial permit additional mental health inquiry at any point during a court-martial proceeding; when questions regarding an accused’s mental responsibility arise during trial, a military judge has a responsibility to order additional inquiry to address those questions
7. mental competence and responsibility are the duty of all trial principals; in the courtroom, however, the military judge is ultimately responsible for ensuring that RCM 706 is followed
8. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion by not ordering further inquiry into the accused’s mental responsibility at the point in the trial when the doctor who conducted the RCM 706 sanity board evaluation of the accused before trial and who was the only doctor to testify at trial concerning the accused’s mental capacity and mental responsibility appeared to change in his trial testimony his sanity board conclusion that the accused understood the wrongfulness of his actions; as a result, the accused was prejudiced when his trial proceeded to conclusion without further and complete inquiry into his mental responsibility

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

1. mental capacity is a question of fact and will be presumed unless the contrary is established by a preponderance of the evidence; lack of mental responsibility is an affirmative defense that must be raised and proven by an accused by clear and convincing evidence; an accused is presumed to be mentally responsible at the time of the alleged offenses until the accused establishes by clear and convincing evidence that he was not mentally responsible at the time of the alleged offenses; clear and convincing evidence 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. the question of whether an additional psychiatric examination is necessary rests within the discretion of the military judge and is reviewable only for abuse of discretion; thus, an appellate court tests a military judge’s decision whether to order additional inquiry into an accused’s mental responsibility for abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs if the findings of fact upon which the judge predicated his ruling were not supported by the evidence of record, if incorrect legal principles were used by him in deciding the matter, or if his application of the correct legal principles to the facts of the case was clearly unreasonable