U.S. v. Mackie, 66 M.J. 198

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Generally

1. a military judge abuses his discretion when the findings of fact upon which he predicates his ruling are not supported by the evidence of record, if incorrect legal principles were used, or if his application of the correct legal principles to the facts is clearly unreasonable
2. the military judge abused his discretion in this case by denying the defense request for a sanity board, where the trial defense counsel detailed concerns that because of the accused’s memory loss, he might not be able to assist in his own defense, might not be fit to stand trial, and that similar memory loss may have occurred during the alleged misconduct, where the accused submitted an affidavit detailing specific instances of blackouts and memory loss over a six-month period, and where the opinions of the accused’s treating clinical psychologist in the form of a stipulation of expected testimony were not an adequate substitute for a sanity board; this psychologist had seen the accused twice by appointment and once for a brief walk-in conversation, never conducted a forensic examination or participated in a sanity board, and was unaware of the accused’s claimed memory losses and blackouts
3. where the issues of mental responsibility and competency were raised by the accused’s motion for a sanity board and with no indication that the motion was made in bad faith or was frivolous, the military judge should have granted the motion; even assuming a medical examination by a qualified physician could take the place of a sanity board, the stipulation in this case, which failed to provide the specific substantive information required under RCM 706(c), was a legally erroneous basis upon which to deny the motion

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. a military judge has the authority to order a sanity board after referral under RCM 706 if it appears there is reason to believe the accused lacked mental responsibility at the time of a charged offense or lacks the capacity to stand trial; a motion for a sanity board should normally be granted if it is made in good faith and is not frivolous

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility

1. a military judge has the authority to order a sanity board after referral under RCM 706 if it appears there is reason to believe the accused lacked mental responsibility at the time of a charged offense or lacks the capacity to stand trial; a motion for a sanity board should normally be granted if it is made in good faith and is not frivolous
2. the military judge abused his discretion in this case by denying the defense request for a sanity board, where the trial defense counsel detailed concerns that because of the accused’s memory loss, he might not be able to assist in his own defense, might not be fit to stand trial, and that similar memory loss may have occurred during the alleged misconduct, where the accused submitted an affidavit detailing specific instances of blackouts and memory loss over a six-month period, and where the opinions of the accused’s treating clinical psychologist in the form of a stipulation of expected testimony were not an adequate substitute for a sanity board; this psychologist had seen the accused twice by appointment and once for a brief walk-in conversation, never conducted a forensic examination or participated in a sanity board, and was unaware of the accused’s claimed memory losses and blackouts
3. the plain text of RCM 706 outlines specific substantive findings that a sanity board is required to make; the sanity board must address not only the accused’s capacity to stand trial, but also his mental responsibility at the time of the act in question; those requirements were not met in this case, where the accused’s treating clinical psychologist admitted in a stipulation of expected testimony that he had not conducted a forensic examination of the accused or spent much time with him, that he was unfamiliar with RCM 706 rules and standards, and that although he was able to say that the accused was capable of standing trial, he could not give an opinion as to whether the accused understood the nature and quality of his actions at the time the alleged criminal conduct occurred, as required by RCM 706(c)
4. where the issues of mental responsibility and competency were raised by the accused’s motion for a sanity board and with no indication that the motion was made in bad faith or was frivolous, the military judge should have granted the motion; even assuming a medical examination by a qualified physician could take the place of a sanity board, the stipulation in this case, which failed to provide the specific substantive information required under RCM 706(c), was a legally erroneous basis upon which to deny the motion

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

1. a military judge has the authority to order a sanity board after referral under RCM 706 if it appears there is reason to believe the accused lacked mental responsibility at the time of a charged offense or lacks the capacity to stand trial; a motion for a sanity board should normally be granted if it is made in good faith and is not frivolous

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Motions, Generally: Pretrial › Generally

1. a military judge has the authority to order a sanity board after referral under RCM 706 if it appears there is reason to believe the accused lacked mental responsibility at the time of a charged offense or lacks the capacity to stand trial; a motion for a sanity board should normally be granted if it is made in good faith and is not frivolous

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Motions, Generally: Burden

1. a military judge has the authority to order a sanity board after referral under RCM 706 if it appears there is reason to believe the accused lacked mental responsibility at the time of a charged offense or lacks the capacity to stand trial; a motion for a sanity board should normally be granted if it is made in good faith and is not frivolous

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to grant or deny a motion for a sanity board for an abuse of discretion; a military judge abuses his discretion when the findings of fact upon which he predicates his ruling are not supported by the evidence of record, if incorrect legal principles were used, or if his application of the correct legal principles to the facts is clearly unreasonable