U.S. v. Blanks, 77 M.J. 239

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Instructions

1. in this case, the military judge did not err, plainly or otherwise, by instructing the members that negligence is not an authorized level of mens rea for an Article 92(3), UCMJ, dereliction of duty offense

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

1. under the UCMJ, a servicemember who is derelict in the performance of his duties shall be punished as a court-martial may direct; although the statute does not explicitly identify a mens rea for this offense, negligence is an authorized level of mens rea for an Article 92(3), UCMJ, dereliction of duty offense
2. dereliction of duty is a uniquely military offense specifically intended by Congress to ensure the proper performance of duty within the military service; servicemembers’ military duties relate to activities which are reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the morale, discipline, and usefulness of the members of a command and are directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the services; thus, the dereliction of duty offense promotes good order and discipline in the military; in light of the military nature of the offense and its limited authorized punishment, a negligence mens rea standard is appropriate for certain dereliction offenses
3. military law maintains obedience and discipline to ensure that servicemembers are ready to perform their mission; a negligent dereliction of duty offense provides commanders with one means to assure that the objectives of the military mission are achieved by holding servicemembers accountable for performance of their military duties whether by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. in this case, the military judge did not err, plainly or otherwise, by instructing the members that negligence is not an authorized level of mens rea for an Article 92(3), UCMJ, dereliction of duty offense

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. where appellant did not object at trial to the military judge’s negligent dereliction of duty instruction on the basis that negligence is not an authorized level of mens rea for an Article 92(3), UCMJ, dereliction of duty offense, an appellate court reviews the instruction for plain error

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

1. where appellant did not object at trial to the military judge’s negligent dereliction of duty instruction on the basis that negligence is not an authorized level of mens rea for an Article 92(3), UCMJ, dereliction of duty offense, an appellate court reviews the instruction for plain error
2. when an appellate court considers a request to overrule a prior decision of the court, it analyzes the matter under the doctrine of stare decisis
3. the doctrine of stare decisis is not an inexorable command; an appellate court considers the following factors in evaluating the application of stare decisis: whether the prior decision is unworkable or poorly reasoned; any intervening events; the reasonable expectations of servicemembers; and the risk of undermining public confidence in the law; a party must present a special justification for us to overrule prior precedent

Miscellaneous Matters: Judicial Review: Stare Decisis

1. when an appellate court considers a request to overrule a prior decision of the court, it analyzes the matter under the doctrine of stare decisis
2. the doctrine of stare decisis provides that adherence to precedent is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process
3. stare decisis is most compelling where courts undertake statutory construction
4. the doctrine of stare decisis is not an inexorable command; an appellate court considers the following factors in evaluating the application of stare decisis: whether the prior decision is unworkable or poorly reasoned; any intervening events; the reasonable expectations of servicemembers; and the risk of undermining public confidence in the law; a party must present a special justification for us to overrule prior precedent