U.S. v. Riddle, 67 M.J. 335

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Generally

1. a military judge can presume, in the absence of contrary circumstances, that the accused is sane and, furthermore, that counsel is competent

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. if, during the proceedings, the accused sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, it is the responsibility of the military judge to either resolve the inconsistency or reject the plea
2. if there is reason to believe that the accused lacked mental responsibility for any offense charged or lacks capacity to stand trial, the military judge and other officers of the court each has the independent responsibility to inquire into the accused’s mental condition
3. the military judge cannot conduct the necessary providence inquiry into the accused’s pleas without exploring the impact of any potential mental health issues on those pleas
4. should the accused’s statements or material in the record indicate a history of mental disease or defect on the part of the accused, the military judge must determine whether that information raises either a conflict with the plea and thus the possibility of a defense or only the mere possibility of conflict; the former requires further inquiry on the part of the military judge, the latter does not; this is a contextual determination by the military judge; however, it is prudent, but not always required, to conduct further inquiry when a significant mental health issue is raised, regardless of whether a conflict has actually arisen
5. in this case, even though the record of trial reflected a diagnosis of bipolar disorder for which appellant was being treated at the time of trial and she arrived at the court-martial from a mental health facility and would return there at its conclusion, the military judge was not required to explain or discuss the defense of lack of mental responsibility with appellant where he was aware of appellant’s mental health history and made sure that her mental condition, current treatment, and competency to stand trial did not put the providence of her plea at issue, where appellant appeared competent and responsible before the military judge, where she claimed she was competent and responsible at the time of the offenses and her counsel agreed that she was competent and responsible at that time, where the mental status evaluation stated that she was responsible, and where no evidence existed to suggest that appellant did not understand the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of her actions when committing the offenses; the evidence before the military judge presented only the mere possibility of conflict with appellant’s guilty pleas and did not raise a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the providence of those pleas

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility

1. in military law, lack of mental responsibility is an affirmative defense that an accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence
2. if there is reason to believe that the accused lacked mental responsibility for any offense charged or lacks capacity to stand trial, the military judge and other officers of the court each has the independent responsibility to inquire into the accused’s mental condition
3. in this case, even though the record of trial reflected a diagnosis of bipolar disorder for which appellant was being treated at the time of trial and she arrived at the court-martial from a mental health facility and would return there at its conclusion, the military judge was not required to explain or discuss the defense of lack of mental responsibility with appellant where he was aware of appellant’s mental health history and made sure that her mental condition, current treatment, and competency to stand trial did not put the providence of her plea at issue, where appellant appeared competent and responsible before the military judge, where she claimed she was competent and responsible at the time of the offenses and her counsel agreed that she was competent and responsible at that time, where the mental status evaluation stated that she was responsible, and where no evidence existed to suggest that appellant did not understand the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of her actions when committing the offenses; the evidence before the military judge presented only the mere possibility of conflict with appellant’s guilty pleas and did not raise a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the providence of those pleas

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Trial Presumptions, Inferences

1. a military judge can presume, in the absence of contrary circumstances, that the accused is sane and, furthermore, that counsel is competent

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. if, during the proceedings, the accused sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, it is the responsibility of the military judge to either resolve the inconsistency or reject the plea
2. (an accused cannot make an informed plea without knowledge that he suffered a severe mental disease or defect at the time of the offense).”
3. the military judge cannot conduct the necessary providence inquiry into the accused’s pleas without exploring the impact of any potential mental health issues on those pleas
4. should the accused’s statements or material in the record indicate a history of mental disease or defect on the part of the accused, the military judge must determine whether that information raises either a conflict with the plea and thus the possibility of a defense or only the mere possibility of conflict; the former requires further inquiry on the part of the military judge, the latter does not; this is a contextual determination by the military judge; however, it is prudent, but not always required, to conduct further inquiry when a significant mental health issue is raised, regardless of whether a conflict has actually arisen
5. in this case, even though the record of trial reflected a diagnosis of bipolar disorder for which appellant was being treated at the time of trial and she arrived at the court-martial from a mental health facility and would return there at its conclusion, the military judge was not required to explain or discuss the defense of lack of mental responsibility with appellant where he was aware of appellant’s mental health history and made sure that her mental condition, current treatment, and competency to stand trial did not put the providence of her plea at issue, where appellant appeared competent and responsible before the military judge, where she claimed she was competent and responsible at the time of the offenses and her counsel agreed that she was competent and responsible at that time, where the mental status evaluation stated that she was responsible, and where no evidence existed to suggest that appellant did not understand the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of her actions when committing the offenses; the evidence before the military judge presented only the mere possibility of conflict with appellant’s guilty pleas and did not raise a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the providence of those pleas

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to accept a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion and questions of law arising from the guilty plea de novo
2. once the military judge has accepted the pleas and entered findings based upon them, an appellate court will not set them aside unless it finds a substantial conflict between the pleas and the accused’s statements or other evidence of record; more than a mere possibility of conflict is required; instead, an appellate court must find something in the record of trial, with regard to the factual basis or the law, that would raise a substantial question regarding the appellant’s guilty plea