U.S. v. Navarette, 81 M.J. 400

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility

1. RCM 706 allows for an inquiry, by a board of one or more professionals, to evaluate whether the accused, at the time of the offense and as a result of severe mental disease or defect was thereby unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his or her conduct and unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him or her or to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the defense
2. during the appellate process, 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; to put into question his capacity under RCM 1203(c)(5), an appellant must show there is a substantial question regarding his ability to conduct and cooperate intelligently in the appellate proceedings; the rule requires that an appellant establish a nexus between his mental impairment and his ability to participate intelligently in the proceedings
3. a substantial question with regard to RCM 1203(c)(5) is one in which the appellant’s mental capacity to understand and to conduct or cooperate intelligently in the appellate proceedings is fairly debatable among jurists of reason; this is not a high bar
4. in this case, the CCA abused its discretion by denying appellant’s request for a post‑trial RCM 706 inquiry where appellant provided substantial evidence of his impaired mental health that shows his ability to participate in the proceedings was fairly debatable; this evidence included proof of his multiple mental illness diagnoses, manic episodes, hospitalizations, suicide attempts, and a major psychiatric relapse, as well as the concerns expressed by his counsel

Trial Stages: Appeals: Generally

1. during the appellate process, 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; to put into question his capacity under RCM 1203(c)(5), an appellant must show there is a substantial question regarding his ability to conduct and cooperate intelligently in the appellate proceedings; the rule requires that an appellant establish a nexus between his mental impairment and his ability to participate intelligently in the proceedings

Trial Stages: Appeals: Courts of Criminal Appeals › Generally

1. in this case, the CCA abused its discretion by denying appellant’s request for a post‑trial RCM 706 inquiry where appellant provided substantial evidence of his impaired mental health that shows his ability to participate in the proceedings was fairly debatable; this evidence included proof of his multiple mental illness diagnoses, manic episodes, hospitalizations, suicide attempts, and a major psychiatric relapse, as well as the concerns expressed by his counsel

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. historically, the CAAF has given preferential treatment to the question of mental responsibility of a military member, even though the matter was not litigated at trial

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

1. the CAAF reviews a CCA’s decision to grant or deny a motion for an RCM 706 inquiry into appellant’s mental status for an abuse of discretion; a court abuses its discretion when its findings of fact are clearly erroneous, its decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law, or the court’s decision is unreasonable in light of the law and facts