U.S. v. Davis, 79 M.J. 329

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Instructions

1. failure to object to an instruction or to omission of an instruction before members close to deliberate constitutes forfeiture of the objection; however, where appellant does not just fail to object but rather affirmatively declines to object to the military judge’s instructions, i.e., by expressly and unequivocally acquiescing to the military judge’s instructions, and offers no additional instructions, appellant waives all objections to the instructions, including in regards to the elements of the offense
2. panel instructions are analyzed for plain error based on the law at the time of appeal; an appellate court generally only reviews the matter for plain error when a new rule of law exists, as an appellant gets the benefit of changes to the law between the time of trial and the time of his appeal

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Appellate Burdens, Standards, Etc. › Instructions

1. failure to object to an instruction or to omission of an instruction before members close to deliberate constitutes forfeiture of the objection; however, where appellant does not just fail to object but rather affirmatively declines to object to the military judge’s instructions, i.e., by expressly and unequivocally acquiescing to the military judge’s instructions, and offers no additional instructions, appellant waives all objections to the instructions, including in regards to the elements of the offense
2. panel instructions are analyzed for plain error based on the law at the time of appeal; an appellate court generally only reviews the matter for plain error when a new rule of law exists, as an appellant gets the benefit of changes to the law between the time of trial and the time of his appeal

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Generally

1. failure to object to an instruction or to omission of an instruction before members close to deliberate constitutes forfeiture of the objection; however, where appellant does not just fail to object but rather affirmatively declines to object to the military judge’s instructions, i.e., by expressly and unequivocally acquiescing to the military judge’s instructions, and offers no additional instructions, appellant waives all objections to the instructions, including in regards to the elements of the offense
2. panel instructions are analyzed for plain error based on the law at the time of appeal; an appellate court generally only reviews the matter for plain error when a new rule of law exists, as an appellant gets the benefit of changes to the law between the time of trial and the time of his appeal
3. in this case, however, where appellant was tried after the applicable precedents with respect to the consent element of Article 120c(a)(2), UCMJ, were decided, yet affirmatively declined to object to the military judge’s instructions on the elements, he waived his claim as to whether the mens rea of “knowingly” applied to the consent element by waiving any objection to the military judge’s instructions regarding the consent element

Trial Stages: Appeals: Preservation of Error / Plain Error

1. whether an appellant has waived an issue is a legal question that an appellate court reviews de novo; waiver is different from forfeiture; whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right; consequently, while an appellate court reviews forfeited issues for plain error, it cannot review waived issues at all because a valid waiver leaves no error for it to correct on appeal
2. failure to object to an instruction or to omission of an instruction before members close to deliberate constitutes forfeiture of the objection; however, where appellant does not just fail to object but rather affirmatively declines to object to the military judge’s instructions, i.e., by expressly and unequivocally acquiescing to the military judge’s instructions, and offers no additional instructions, appellant waives all objections to the instructions, including in regards to the elements of the offense
3. panel instructions are analyzed for plain error based on the law at the time of appeal; an appellate court generally only reviews the matter for plain error when a new rule of law exists, as an appellant gets the benefit of changes to the law between the time of trial and the time of his appeal

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

1. whether an appellant has waived an issue is a legal question that an appellate court reviews de novo; waiver is different from forfeiture; whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right; consequently, while an appellate court reviews forfeited issues for plain error, it cannot review waived issues at all because a valid waiver leaves no error for it to correct on appeal
2. failure to object to an instruction or to omission of an instruction before members close to deliberate constitutes forfeiture of the objection; however, where appellant does not just fail to object but rather affirmatively declines to object to the military judge’s instructions, i.e., by expressly and unequivocally acquiescing to the military judge’s instructions, and offers no additional instructions, appellant waives all objections to the instructions, including in regards to the elements of the offense
3. where an appellant has affirmatively waived any objection to the military judge’s findings instructions, there is nothing left for an appellate court to correct on appeal
4. panel instructions are analyzed for plain error based on the law at the time of appeal; an appellate court generally only reviews the matter for plain error when a new rule of law exists, as an appellant gets the benefit of changes to the law between the time of trial and the time of his appeal

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

1. whether an appellant has waived an issue is a legal question that an appellate court reviews de novo; waiver is different from forfeiture; whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right; consequently, while an appellate court reviews forfeited issues for plain error, it cannot review waived issues at all because a valid waiver leaves no error for it to correct on appeal
2. failure to object to an instruction or to omission of an instruction before members close to deliberate constitutes forfeiture of the objection; however, where appellant does not just fail to object but rather affirmatively declines to object to the military judge’s instructions, i.e., by expressly and unequivocally acquiescing to the military judge’s instructions, and offers no additional instructions, appellant waives all objections to the instructions, including in regards to the elements of the offense
3. where an appellant has affirmatively waived any objection to the military judge’s findings instructions, there is nothing left for an appellate court to correct on appeal
4. in this case, however, where appellant was tried after the applicable precedents with respect to the consent element of Article 120c(a)(2), UCMJ, were decided, yet affirmatively declined to object to the military judge’s instructions on the elements, he waived his claim as to whether the mens rea of “knowingly” applied to the consent element by waiving any objection to the military judge’s instructions regarding the consent element