United States v. Cox
ACM 38885
| A.F.C.C.A. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Appellant (21) drove a recently purchased manual "muscle car" off-base with three passengers; he had limited experience with standard-transmission driving.
- He and another Airman were driving at excessive speeds, passing on both sides on a divided four-lane road; the crash occurred on a curvy, downhill section.
- Appellant lost control; his car vaulted a curb, struck a tree, rolled multiple times, was catastrophically damaged; the front-seat passenger died, others injured.
- Charge and conviction: convicted at a general court-martial (military judge alone) of involuntary manslaughter by culpable negligence (Article 119); adjudged one year confinement and reduction to E-1; a separate reckless-driving finding was dismissed as multiplicative.
- Key contested factual issues: appellant conceded simple negligence but argued his conduct did not rise to culpable negligence; defense contested government expert’s speed estimate and pointed to vehicle modifications (disconnected side airbags) as causal.
- The military judge convicted; on appeal the court reviewed legal and factual sufficiency de novo and affirmed the findings and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence legally and factually sufficed to prove involuntary manslaughter by culpable negligence | Government: excessive speed (over 100 mph), high‑speed passing, inexperienced driver, road curvature/grade, and other surrounding facts show culpable negligence and foreseeability of death | Appellant: conduct at most simple negligence; speed alone cannot establish culpable negligence; vehicle modifications (disconnected side airbags) were the actual cause of death | Affirmed: evidence (speed, manner of driving, inexperience, road conditions, admissions, lay witness corroboration) proved culpable negligence beyond a reasonable doubt; vehicle modifications did not negate foreseeability or causation |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standard of review for legal and factual sufficiency)
- United States v. Humpherys, 57 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (legal sufficiency test: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987) (legal and factual sufficiency framework)
- United States v. Oxendine, 55 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (elements of involuntary manslaughter by culpable negligence)
- United States v. McDuffie, 65 M.J. 631 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2007) (objective foreseeability test)
- United States v. Crafter, 64 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (sufficiency of specification pleading and consideration of surrounding circumstances)
- United States v. Bennitt, 72 M.J. 266 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (speed alone may be insufficient; circumstances matter)
- United States v. Lawrence, 18 C.M.R. 855 (A.F.C.M.R. 1955) (exceeding speed limit alone may show only simple negligence)
- United States v. Gamble, 40 C.M.R. 646 (A.C.M.R. 1969) (speeding alone insufficient for culpable negligence)