United States v. Rapert
2016 CAAF LEXIS 234
| C.A.A.F. | 2016Background
- Appellant was charged under Article 134, UCMJ for communicating a threat against the President.
- Trial proceeded by a military judge sitting as a special court-martial; Appellant was convicted.
- Statements were made on election night 2012 outside Kilburns’ home; Kilburn testified Appellant spoke of killing the President and harming him.
- Secret Service investigated; Appellant later claimed statements were jokes and not meant seriously.
- Military judge instructed on the two-prong analysis (objective first element; subjective wrongful element) and convicted; sentence included confinement, reduction, and discharge.
- This court granted review to address Elonis v. United States’s impact on mens rea under Article 134 and the First Amendment impact on the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Elonis requires a higher mens rea under Article 134, UCMJ. | Rapert argues Elonis requires negligence only for conviction. | Rapert argues Elonis requires at least recklessness or higher for wrongful element. | Elonis does not apply; article requires wrongful (subjective) mens rea beyond negligence. |
| Whether the first element of Article 134, UCMJ is objective and the third element is subjective. | Appellant contends third element not requiring mental state beyond negligence. | Government asserts both objective threat and subjective wrongfulness; mens rea is required. | Court adopts dual prong: objective threat for element 1, subjective wrongfulness for element 3. |
| Whether Appellant's First Amendment rights negate the conviction. | Speech should be protected; conduct not sufficiently connected to military interest. | Speech linked to military mission justifies restriction; balance favors prohibition. | Even if protected, military interests justify proscribing the speech. |
| Whether the military judge properly applied the law given the Elonis framework. | Appellant contends the judge relied on negligence; no clear error shown. | Judge properly considered both prongs and did not err. | Military judge properly applied the law and upheld conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. United States, 42 M.J. 127 (C.A.A.F.1995) (definition of threat and objective first element)
- Humphrys v. United States, 7 C.M.A. 306 (C.M.A.1956) (distinction between declaration of intent and actual intent)
- Brown v. United States, 65 M.J. 227 (C.A.A.F.2007) (connection between speech and military mission)
- Priest v. United States, 21 C.M.A. 564 (C.M.A.1972) (free speech vs. military discipline balancing test)
- Goings v. United States, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F.2013) (military free speech balancing factors)
- Erickson v. United States, 65 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F.2007) (military judges presumed to know and follow law)
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (necessity of mens rea; neg. not enough; framework for intent)