U.S. v. Saul, 86 M.J. 30

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. under United States v. Care, 18 CMA 535, 541, 40 CMR 247, 253 (1969), the military judge must explain each of the elements of an offense to the accused and question the accused to ensure that the accused's acts or omissions constitute the offense to which the accused is pleading guilty; if an accused after a plea of guilty sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, or if it appears that he has entered the plea of guilty improvidently, a plea of not guilty shall be entered in the record, and the court shall proceed as though he had pleaded not guilty
2. if an accused sets up matter inconsistent with the plea at any time during the proceeding, the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea; military judges often can resolve apparent inconsistencies by asking the accused questions and receiving answers that show no actual inconsistency exists
3. because a substantial inconsistency between appellant's plea to willfully destroying a car windshield and his express statements that he did not intend to damage the windshield was not resolved, Article 45, UCMJ, required the military judge to enter a plea of not guilty; the government then could decide whether to proceed to trial, at which a court-martial might or might not have found circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant acted willfully and wrongfully even if appellant were to testify that he did not intend to damage the windshield

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. in this case, the military judge abused his discretion in accepting appellant's guilty plea to willfully destroying a car windshield where the military judge failed to resolve the substantial inconsistency between any inference that appellant willfully and wrongfully destroyed the windshield and his earlier express statements that he did not intend to damage the windshield

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 109 - Property Other Than Military Property of US - Waste, Spoilage, or Destruction Offenses on/after 1 Jan 2019

1. Article 109, UCMJ, establishes offenses concerning the destruction of nonmilitary property; it provides in relevant part that any person subject to this chapter who willfully and wrongfully destroys or damages any property other than military property of the United States shall be punished as a court-martial may direct; Article 109, UCMJ, requires that the government prove the accused had the specific intent of destroying or damaging property, as opposed to merely intending to do an act without necessarily intending for the act to damage or destroy property
2. Appellant's plea of guilty to the specification of willfully and wrongfully destroying nonmilitary property, a car windshield, under Article 109, UCMJ, was improvident given his repeated statements that he did not intend to damage the windshield; the military judge never resolved the substantial inconsistency between any inference that appellant willfully and wrongfully destroyed a windshield and his earlier express statements that he did not intend to damage the windshield; even if a military judge could lawfully infer that appellant acted willfully and wrongfully based on his knowledge of the natural and probable consequences of his action, that inference substantially conflicted with appellant's repeated statements that he did not intend to damage the windshield; and nothing in the plea inquiry resolved this substantial inconsistency
3. in this case, precedent has established that an accused must destroy property willfully and wrongfully to violate Article 109, UCMJ; appellant's express statements that he did not intentionally damage the windshield were therefore inconsistent with his plea of guilty to violating Article 109, UCMJ

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Inferences

1. a permissive inference, also called a permissive presumption, is a presumption that a trier of fact is free to accept or reject from a given set of facts

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Trial Presumptions, Inferences

1. a permissive inference, also called a permissive presumption, is a presumption that a trier of fact is free to accept or reject from a given set of facts

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

1. a permissive inference, also called a permissive presumption, is a presumption that a trier of fact is free to accept or reject from a given set of facts

Trial Stages: Merits: Guilty Pleas

1. under United States v. Care, 18 CMA 535, 541, 40 CMR 247, 253 (1969), the military judge must explain each of the elements of an offense to the accused and question the accused to ensure that the accused's acts or omissions constitute the offense to which the accused is pleading guilty; if an accused after a plea of guilty sets up matter inconsistent with the plea, or if it appears that he has entered the plea of guilty improvidently, a plea of not guilty shall be entered in the record, and the court shall proceed as though he had pleaded not guilty
2. if an accused sets up matter inconsistent with the plea at any time during the proceeding, the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea; military judges often can resolve apparent inconsistencies by asking the accused questions and receiving answers that show no actual inconsistency exists
3. because a substantial inconsistency between appellant's plea to willfully destroying a car windshield and his express statements that he did not intend to damage the windshield was not resolved, Article 45, UCMJ, required the military judge to enter a plea of not guilty; the government then could decide whether to proceed to trial, at which a court-martial might or might not have found circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant acted willfully and wrongfully even if appellant were to testify that he did not intend to damage the windshield

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

1. two standards of review govern appeals in guilty plea cases; an appellate court reviews questions of law arising from the guilty plea de novo; however, it reviews a military judge's acceptance of a guilty plea for abuse of discretion
2. once a military judge has accepted a plea as provident and has entered findings based on it, an appellate court will not reverse that finding and reject the plea unless it finds a substantial conflict between the plea and the accused's statements