U.S. v. Goodman, 70 M.J. 396

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. if an accused sets up matter inconsistent with the plea at any time during the proceeding, the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea; to rise to the level of inconsistency contemplated by Article 45(a), UCMJ, matters raised at trial must have reasonably raised the question of a defense or must have been inconsistent with the plea in some respect

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 92 - Failure to Obey Order or Regulation Pre-2019 offenses

1. because the violation of a general regulation is a general-intent offense, mistake of fact is not a defense unless the mistake is both honest and reasonable; the honest belief prong is subjective, while the reasonableness prong is objective

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Mistake of Fact

1. mistake of fact is a special defense; it is a defense when it negatives the existence of a mental state essential to the crime charged; in other words, an accused may not be convicted when it is shown that he does not have the mental state required by law for commission of that particular offense
2. if the ignorance or mistake of fact goes to an element requiring premeditation, specific intent, willfulness, or knowledge of a particular fact, the ignorance or mistake need only have existed in the mind of the accused; however, if the ignorance or mistake goes to any other element requiring only general intent or knowledge, the ignorance or mistake must have existed in the mind of the accused and must have been reasonable under all the circumstances
3. because the violation of a general regulation is a general-intent offense, mistake of fact is not a defense unless the mistake is both honest and reasonable; the honest belief prong is subjective, while the reasonableness prong is objective

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. during a guilty plea inquiry, the accused must establish not only that he believes he is guilty but also that the factual circumstances support that plea
2. if an accused sets up matter inconsistent with the plea at any time during the proceeding, the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea; to rise to the level of inconsistency contemplated by Article 45(a), UCMJ, matters raised at trial must have reasonably raised the question of a defense or must have been inconsistent with the plea in some respect
3. appellant’s testimony during the guilty plea inquiry that he subjectively believed that his sexual comments to the victim were welcome did not raise a mistake of fact defense or an inconsistency with regard to his guilty plea, and there was no substantial basis in either law or fact to question the plea, where nothing in the record supported the reasonableness of such a belief; appellant, who outranked the victim and was tasked with in-processing her into her new unit, admitted that, despite his previous training on sexual harassment, he initiated the sexual banter in response to the victim’s attempts at being friendly, and he admitted that his comments created a very hostile work environment that made it difficult for the victim to perform her duties; appellant knew his comments were likely to bring offense, and he made them deliberately, in an attempt to find a woman who would be willing to engage in sex with him

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

1. once a military judge has accepted an accused’s guilty pleas and entered findings of guilty, an appellate court will not set them aside unless it finds a substantial basis in law or fact for questioning the plea
2. in determining on appeal whether there is a substantial inconsistency in a guilty plea, an appellate court considers the full context of the plea inquiry, including appellant’s stipulation of fact