United States v. Private E1 STEVEN M. TUCKER
2016 CCA LEXIS 632
A.C.C.A.2016Background
- Appellant, Pvt. Steven M. Tucker, pleaded guilty at general court-martial to, inter alia, providing alcohol to a person under 21 in violation of Article 134, UCMJ; sentence approved included BCD and 36 months confinement per PTA.
- Specification alleged a general Article 134 disorder based on providing alcohol to PV2 TG, who was under 21.
- During providence inquiry appellant admitted giving alcohol at a party without checking ages and knew some barracks residents were under 21, but said he had no reason to believe TG specifically was under 21.
- Trial counsel and defense counsel both characterized the Article 134 offense as a general-intent crime permitting liability for deliberate ignorance.
- The military judge instructed on negligence as the applicable mens rea and accepted appellant’s guilty plea; appellant later argued the judge should have instructed on recklessness, relying on Elonis and Gifford.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was improvident because judge instructed negligence instead of recklessness for Article 134 alcohol-to-minor spec. | Elonis/Gifford: where statute is silent, mens rea must be greater than negligence (recklessness). | Article 134 expressly criminalizes "neglects"; statute is not silent and supports a negligence standard; judge did not err. | Court held Elonis/Gifford inapplicable and affirmed plea; negligence instruction was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Elonis, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (when a federal criminal statute is silent on mens rea, courts read in a mens rea greater than negligence)
- United States v. Gifford, 75 M.J. 140 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (applied Elonis to a lawful general order and adopted recklessness as minimum mens rea)
- United States v. Rapert, 75 M.J. 164 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (held Elonis inapplicable where the military offense contained an element—"wrongful"—absent from the federal statute)
- United States v. Inabinette, 66 M.J. 320 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for accepting guilty plea)
- United States v. Weeks, 71 M.J. 44 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (a plea is improvident if there is an inadequate factual basis or the ruling is based on an erroneous view of law)