United States v. Rendon
2016 CCA LEXIS 643
| N.M.C.C.A. | 2016Background
- Appellant (Sergeant Rendon) was tried by general court-martial and convicted of aggravated assault, assault consummated by a battery, and disorderly conduct; sentence approved: 180 days confinement, total forfeitures for six months, reduction to E-1, bad-conduct discharge.
- After government’s case-in-chief, appellant had a car accident (lost consciousness, head injury); military judge ordered an R.C.M. 706 competency exam and, after a truncated report, found appellant incompetent on 10 July 2015 and indicated commitment to the U.S. Attorney General per R.C.M. 909(f).
- Appellant received inpatient treatment and was released; the military judge then ordered a second R.C.M. 706 evaluation (neuropsych testing) on government request to assess possible restoration of competence.
- The July 23–24, 2015 evaluation concluded appellant was competent; military judge held another competency hearing on July 28 and found appellant competent to stand trial; trial resumed and the members were instructed and convicted.
- Appellant’s appeals: (1) initial assignment of error—military failed to follow R.C.M. 909 by conducting a second competency board instead of committing appellant to the Attorney General; (2) supplemental AOE—military judge’s reasonable-doubt instruction improperly shifted or directed a verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory commitment to Attorney General per R.C.M. 909(f) was required after initial incompetency finding | Rendon: finding of incompetence on July 10 triggered mandatory commitment; second R.C.M. 706 violated R.C.M. 909 and deprived him of proper mental-health care | Government/Court: second R.C.M. 706 and re-hearing were within the military judge’s discretion pending final disposition; a second exam could determine restoration and avoid unnecessary commitment | Court: Commitment is mandatory once incompetence is found, but the initial finding was not final; military judge did not abuse discretion in ordering a second exam and re-hearing; no legal prejudice shown |
| Whether the military judge’s July 28 competency finding was clearly erroneous | Rendon: continued questions about competence after head injury; competency at trial doubtful | Government: July 23–24 neuropsychological exam by qualified clinicians supported competence finding | Court: Military judge’s finding that appellant was competent was not clearly erroneous based on the 706 board and record |
| Whether the reasonable-doubt instruction (“if... firmly convinced... you must find him guilty”) unconstitutionally directed a verdict or shifted burden | Rendon: language effectively directed a guilty verdict and violated Martin Linen prohibition on directed verdicts | Government: instruction is drawn from Federal Judicial Center model and accepted by courts; did not eliminate jury factfinding or shift burden | Court: Instruction lawful; phrasing is an accepted explanation of reasonable doubt and did not usurp the members’ role |
| Whether any error was prejudicial requiring reversal of findings/sentence | Rendon: procedural and instructional errors undermined verdict and sentence | Government: no plain or actual prejudice; members properly instructed and competent determination cured mandatory-commitment predicate | Court: No material prejudice to substantial rights; findings and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Proctor, 37 M.J. 330 (C.M.A.) (standard for overturning competency finding)
- United States v. Collins, 60 M.J. 261 (C.A.A.F.) (trial court discretion to order additional psychiatric exams)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (concurring approval of model reasonable-doubt language)
- United States v. Meeks, 41 M.J. 150 (C.M.A.) (endorsement that military should consider FJC reasonable-doubt instruction)
- United States v. Sherman, 912 F.2d 907 (7th Cir.) (discretion to order second competency exam)
- United States v. Ferro, 321 F.3d 756 (8th Cir.) (commitment under §4241(d) may be mandated despite prognosis)
- United States v. Shawar, 865 F.2d 856 (7th Cir.) (statutory commitment mandatory upon incompetency finding)
- Martin Linen Supply Co. v. United States, 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (prohibition on directed verdicts by judge)