United States v. MacDonald
2014 CAAF LEXIS 868
| C.A.A.F. | 2014Background
- PFC George D. B. MacDonald (age 19) was convicted at general court-martial of premeditated murder, resisting apprehension, and assaults for stabbing a fellow trainee to death one month after being prescribed varenicline (Chantix) to quit smoking.
- Defense evidence: (1) a private lab later detected varenicline in MacDonald’s preserved urine sample; (2) experts testified Chantix can cause severe neuropsychiatric effects (including homicidal ideation/psychosis) and can exacerbate preexisting psychiatric disorders; (3) defense experts diagnosed MacDonald with underlying psychiatric disorders and opined he experienced a Chantix-induced psychotic episode that impaired his ability to form intent.
- Government evidence/behavioral facts cited as showing intent: contemporaneous statements (asking girlfriend if she would love him if he killed someone), deliberate arming/stalking of a sleeping victim, fleeing, showering, and attempted escape after the attack.
- Trial judge refused to give an involuntary intoxication instruction, instead instructing solely on lack of mental responsibility (Article 50a) and partial mental responsibility; the Government even proffered an involuntary-intoxication instruction but the judge declined it.
- Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) held the judge erred in not instructing on involuntary intoxication but found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the mental-responsibility instruction was equivalent and the evidence of intent was overwhelming.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) reversed the CCA: it held the military judge had a sua sponte duty to instruct on involuntary intoxication and that the omission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, because involuntary intoxication has a distinct threshold (involuntary ingestion) that is not covered by the mental-responsibility instruction; CAAF authorized a rehearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (MacDonald) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge erred in failing to give an involuntary intoxication instruction | The mental-responsibility instruction (Article 50a) adequately covered involuntary intoxication; judge did not need a separate instruction | Evidence (drug detected, FDA/Pfizer warnings, expert testimony) reasonably raised involuntary intoxication and required a sua sponte instruction | Court: Judge had a sua sponte duty to instruct on involuntary intoxication (error to omit) |
| Whether omission of the involuntary intoxication instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | The evidence of MacDonald’s intent was overwhelming; any instructional overlap made the error harmless | Failure to instruct was prejudicial because involuntary intoxication has a distinct first-prong (involuntary ingestion) that the mental-responsibility instruction did not cover; members might have declined to consider intoxication absent the instruction | Court: Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction set aside and rehearing authorized |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hensler, 44 M.J. 184 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (discusses relationship between involuntary intoxication and insanity/mental-responsibility defenses)
- United States v. F.D.L., 836 F.2d 1113 (8th Cir. 1988) (articulates two-part test for involuntary intoxication: involuntary ingestion and inability to appreciate nature/ wrongfulness)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional instructional errors)
- United States v. Davis, 53 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (sua sponte duty to give an instruction when an affirmative defense is reasonably raised)