U.S. v. MacDonald, 73 M.J. 426

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. the military judge bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that mandatory instructions are given and given accurately
2. if an affirmative defense is reasonably raised by the evidence, the military judge has a sua sponte duty to instruct the members on that defense; a defense is reasonably raised when some evidence, without regard to its source or credibility, has been admitted upon which members might rely if they chose
3. any doubt regarding whether an affirmative defense instruction is in order should be resolved in favor of the accused
4. during a murder trial, where appellant put on some evidence that the potential side effects of Chantix, a smoking cessation drug he was taking at the time he fatally stabbed the victim, could have affected his ability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts, the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication was reasonably raised and the military judge had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense of involuntary intoxication

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Instructions

1. the military judge bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that mandatory instructions are given and given accurately
2. if an affirmative defense is reasonably raised by the evidence, the military judge has a sua sponte duty to instruct the members on that defense; a defense is reasonably raised when some evidence, without regard to its source or credibility, has been admitted upon which members might rely if they chose
3. any doubt regarding whether an affirmative defense instruction is in order should be resolved in favor of the accused
4. during a murder trial, where appellant put on some evidence that the potential side effects of Chantix, a smoking cessation drug he was taking at the time he fatally stabbed the victim, could have affected his ability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts, the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication was reasonably raised and the military judge had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense of involuntary intoxication

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Generally

1. a defense is reasonably raised when some evidence, without regard to its source or credibility, has been admitted upon which members might rely if they chose

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Affirmative Defenses

1. if an affirmative defense is reasonably raised by the evidence, the military judge has a sua sponte duty to instruct the members on that defense; a defense is reasonably raised when some evidence, without regard to its source or credibility, has been admitted upon which members might rely if they chose
2. any doubt regarding whether an affirmative defense instruction is in order should be resolved in favor of the accused
3. involuntary intoxication is an affirmative defense under the UCMJ
4. the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication requires a finding that there has been involuntary ingestion of an intoxicant and that the accused was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts
5. the defense of involuntary intoxication is similar to that of lack of mental responsibility in that the defense must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts, but different in that he need not prove that he suffered a severe mental disease or defect, but rather that he was intoxicated by some substance that results in what amounts to legal insanity
6. during this murder trial, where appellant put on some evidence that the potential side effects of Chantix, a smoking cessation drug he was taking at the time he fatally stabbed the victim, could have affected his ability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts, the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication was reasonably raised and the military judge had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense of involuntary intoxication

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility

1. the defense of lack of mental responsibility requires demonstration that the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect and that as a result he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his act

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. the military judge bears the primary responsibility for ensuring that mandatory instructions are given and given accurately

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Affirmative defenses

1. if an affirmative defense is reasonably raised by the evidence, the military judge has a sua sponte duty to instruct the members on that defense; a defense is reasonably raised when some evidence, without regard to its source or credibility, has been admitted upon which members might rely if they chose
2. any doubt regarding whether an affirmative defense instruction is in order should be resolved in favor of the accused
3. during this murder trial, where appellant put on some evidence that the potential side effects of Chantix, a smoking cessation drug he was taking at the time he fatally stabbed the victim, could have affected his ability to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts, the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication was reasonably raised and the military judge had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense of involuntary intoxication

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. where an instructional error raises constitutional implications, an appellate court tests the error for prejudice using a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard; the test for determining if the constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained; whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo
2. the military judge’s error in failing to give an involuntary intoxication instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt even though the judge instructed on the defense of lack of mental responsibility and partial mental responsibility; without an involuntary intoxication instruction, it is possible that the members may have concluded that they could not acquit appellant without first finding a mental disease or defect; it is similarly possible that the members did not consider, as a separate matter, whether involuntary intoxication with respect to Chantix may have prevented appellant from appreciating the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts
3. the evidence of appellant’s ability to form the necessary intent to kill was not so overwhelming that appellant could not be prejudiced by the military judge’s error in failing to give an instruction on involuntary intoxication; although there was evidence that appellant planned his attack and attempted to escape thereafter, there were two reasons why this evidence was not so overwhelming as to render the instruction harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; first, the evidence did not account for the defense expert testimony that the Chantix may have affected appellant’s mental state and capacity at the time of the incident such that he was under the influence of Chantix; and second, where the evidence could support multiple arguments, appellant was entitled to have the trier of fact, and not an appellate court, hear and test the credibility of the evidence based on proper instructions

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

1. the adequacy of a military judge’s instructions is reviewed by an appellate court de novo
2. where an instructional error raises constitutional implications, an appellate court tests the error for prejudice using a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard; the test for determining if the constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained; whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is a question of law that an appellate court reviews de novo