United States v. Bennitt
2013 CAAF LEXIS 622
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Appellant was convicted by general court-martial of involuntary manslaughter by aiding and abetting in violation of Article 119(b)(2), UCMJ, for LK's death from a drug overdose.
- The government asked whether aiding and abetting the wrongful use of a controlled substance is an offense directly affecting the person under Article 119(b)(2).
- LK, sixteen, died in Appellant's barracks on February 15, 2009; initial defense differed from later statements in which Appellant admitted distribution and use offenses.
- Appellant purchased and distributed Opana and Alprazolam; he crushed Opana, divided it, and LK and TY snorted it in the barracks; LK became unresponsive and died.
- The Army CCA affirmed; the Army sought review to determine sufficiency and scope of the offense, and whether LK's use alone could support a conviction.
- The majority reversed on Specification 2, set aside the finding of guilt for that specification, and remanded for reassessment or rehearing on sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aiding and abetting wrongful drug use is an offense directly affecting the person | Government: may fit under Article 119(b)(2) when aiding ingestion | Appellant: not directly affecting the person here; distribution alone is insufficient | Not directly affecting; conviction legally insufficient |
| Whether LK's use being unlawful supports the offense if LK is not subject to the UCMJ | Government: aiding and abetting wrongful use is an offense under Article 112a and applicable regardless of LK's status | Appellant: LK's status does not remove liability; aiding and abetting wrongful use remains an offense | Court did not reach this issue; reserved for potential further consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sargent, 18 M.J. 331 (C.M.A. 1984) (articulates scope of 'offense directly affecting the person' and malum in se vs malum prohibitum distinctions)
- United States v. Dillon, 18 M.J. 340 (C.M.A. 1984) (cocaine distribution not sufficient when no aiding in ingestion)
- United States v. Henderson, 23 M.J. 77 (C.M.A. 1986) (examples of sufficiency when defendant's conduct facilitates ingestion)
- People v. Grieco, 266 N.E.2d 634 (N.Y. 1934) (mala in se vs mala prohibita context for offenses directly affecting the person)
- United States v. Cavett, 18 C.M.R. 793 (A.F.B.R. 1955) (drug distribution historically viewed as malum prohibitum under prior practice)