United States v. Caldwell
2016 CAAF LEXIS 371
| C.A.A.F. | 2016Background
- Sgt. 1st Class Caldwell was tried by a general court-martial for maltreatment of Specialist CH under Article 93, UCMJ, and was convicted (also convicted of abusive sexual contact).
- Evidence showed repeated sexualized comments, leering, and inappropriate touching of a subordinate while deployed and after return to the U.S.; CH reported the conduct to CID.
- The military judge instructed the panel using Benchbook language defining maltreatment objectively as abusive, unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary conduct that results in or could cause physical or mental harm; consent/acquiescence was a factor to consider.
- Caldwell argued on appeal that the military judge’s instructions effectively allowed conviction on a negligence standard and thus were erroneous after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Elonis v. United States.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; CAAF granted review to decide whether the instructions were plainly erroneous in light of Elonis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 93 requires a mens rea beyond general intent after Elonis | Gov't: Article 93 is a general-intent crime and that general intent suffices to separate lawful from unlawful conduct | Caldwell: Instructions permitted conviction on negligence, which Elonis forbids where a higher mens rea is required | Held: General intent (knowledge of actus reus) suffices for Article 93; Elonis does not compel a specific-intent requirement here |
| Whether the military judge plainly erred by using negligence-language in instructions | Gov't: Instructions, viewed as a whole, required consideration of conduct "under all the circumstances," which captured general intent | Caldwell: The instructions were less explicit on mens rea and allowed conviction for negligent conduct | Held: No plain error; the instructions reasonably required the panel to find the accused knowingly directed the conduct at a subordinate (general intent) |
| Whether a mistake-of-fact instruction was required sua sponte | Caldwell: (implied) absence of explicit mens rea or mistake defense warranted instruction | Gov't: No evidence reasonably raised an honest and reasonable mistake of fact | Held: No duty to instruct; mistake of fact defense was not reasonably raised by the evidence |
| What mens rea instruction is appropriate for Article 93 going forward | Gov't: Benchbook language adequate | Caldwell: (implicit) needed greater clarity post-Elonis | Held: Courts should instruct explicitly that the government must prove the accused knew the victim was subject to orders, knew he made the statements or engaged in the conduct, and that the conduct, objectively, was abusive or could have caused harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (Supreme Court decision setting principles for mens rea assessment in criminal statutes)
- Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255 (2000) (general intent can suffice where the act itself separates innocent from wrongful conduct)
- Bailey v. United States, 444 U.S. 394 (1979) (knowledge corresponds loosely with general intent)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (courts should infer mens rea requirements to separate wrongful from innocent acts)
- United States v. Carson, 57 M.J. 410 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (maltreatment’s essence is abuse of authority; objective standard applies)