U.S. v. Navarette, 79 M.J. 123

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility

1. RCM 706 governs trial level inquiries into the mental capacity of an accused; the rule offers guidelines for a mental health query by a board of one or more qualified professionals to determine whether the accused, at the time of the offense and as a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his or her conduct and whether, at the time of the court-martial, the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect rendering the accused unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against the accused or to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the defense
2. RCM 1203(c)(5) allows that an appellate authority may order a psychiatric evaluation in accordance with RCM 706 if a substantial question is raised as to the requisite mental capacity of the accused; the requisite capacity contemplated by RCM 1203(c)(5) is the capacity to conduct and cooperate intelligently in the appellate proceedings; in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, the accused is presumed to have the capacity to understand and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the appellate proceedings; thus, the rule requires that an appellant establish a nexus between his mental impairment and his ability to participate intelligently in the proceedings; if an appellate court orders an RCM 706 hearing under RCM 1203(c)(5), it is within that court’s discretion to determine the scope of the inquiry and whether to include an inquiry into an appellant’s mental capacity at the time of trial and/or at the time of the offense
3. in order to obtain an RCM 706 inquiry at the appellate level, an appellant must make a showing that there is a sufficient reason to question either his mental capacity or mental responsibility; thus, an appellant must, at a minimum, articulate how his mental condition prevents him from being able to understand or participate in the proceedings; without such a nexus, appellant does not raise a substantial question as to his mental capacity
4. in this case, appellant failed to articulate how his mental condition affected his ability to participate in his appellate proceedings, and it was not an abuse of discretion for the lower court to require him to do so
5. in this case, it was not clear that the lower court appropriately considered the degree to which appellant suffered from serious mental illness that may have impacted his decision-making capacity during the period of appellate representation where appellant was involuntarily hospitalized twice for mental health issues during the time that his appellate defense counsel was preparing his appellate brief and where a hospital discharge summary and letter from appellant’s treating psychiatrist reported appellant’s ongoing and long-term struggles with mental health; accordingly, the case was remanded to the lower court to (1) give appellate defense counsel the opportunity to make a showing of nexus between appellant’s significant and documented mental health issues and his capacity to participate in appellate proceedings; and (2) give the lower court the opportunity to more fully evaluate appellant’s RCM 1203 motion in light of counsel’s representations and all other evidence relating to appellant’s mental capacity, particularly in regard to the events that unfolded during the period of appellate representation

Trial Stages: Appeals: Generally

1. RCM 1203(c)(5) allows that an appellate authority may order a psychiatric evaluation in accordance with RCM 706 if a substantial question is raised as to the requisite mental capacity of the accused; the requisite capacity contemplated by RCM 1203(c)(5) is the capacity to conduct and cooperate intelligently in the appellate proceedings; in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, the accused is presumed to have the capacity to understand and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the appellate proceedings; thus, the rule requires that an appellant establish a nexus between his mental impairment and his ability to participate intelligently in the proceedings; if an appellate court orders an RCM 706 hearing under RCM 1203(c)(5), it is within that court’s discretion to determine the scope of the inquiry and whether to include an inquiry into an appellant’s mental capacity at the time of trial and/or at the time of the offense
2. in order to obtain an RCM 706 inquiry at the appellate level, an appellant must make a showing that there is a sufficient reason to question either his mental capacity or mental responsibility; thus, an appellant must, at a minimum, articulate how his mental condition prevents him from being able to understand or participate in the proceedings; without such a nexus, appellant does not raise a substantial question as to his mental capacity
3. in this case, appellant failed to articulate how his mental condition affected his ability to participate in his appellate proceedings, and it was not an abuse of discretion for the lower court to require him to do so
4. in this case, it was not clear that the lower court appropriately considered the degree to which appellant suffered from serious mental illness that may have impacted his decision-making capacity during the period of appellate representation where appellant was involuntarily hospitalized twice for mental health issues during the time that his appellate defense counsel was preparing his appellate brief and where a hospital discharge summary and letter from appellant’s treating psychiatrist reported appellant’s ongoing and long-term struggles with mental health; accordingly, the case was remanded to the lower court to (1) give appellate defense counsel the opportunity to make a showing of nexus between appellant’s significant and documented mental health issues and his capacity to participate in appellate proceedings; and (2) give the lower court the opportunity to more fully evaluate appellant’s RCM 1203 motion in light of counsel’s representations and all other evidence relating to appellant’s mental capacity, particularly in regard to the events that unfolded during the period of appellate representation

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

1. generally, the decision to grant or deny a motion for a sanity board is reviewed by an appellate court for an abuse of discretion; under the abuse of discretion standard, findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo