United States v. Schumacher
2011 CAAF LEXIS 1052
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Appellant Schumacher was convicted by general court-martial of failing to obey a noncommissioned officer, two specifications of simple assault, and communicating a threat, by a panel of members.
- The offenses arose from an incident in which Schumacher, during a domestic dispute with his wife, pointed a pistol at a member of the military police who arrived to respond to a call.
- KD, Schumacher's wife, had called MPs; Schumacher confronted them with firearms and made threatening statements.
- The military judge declined to give a self-defense instruction for the assault against the MP, finding no evidence that Schumacher reasonably believed the MPs would inflict unlawful harm.
- The CCA affirmed most convictions but reversed/modified the threat conviction and remanded for Fosler-directed consideration; the Navy-Marine Corps CCA’s judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
- The court remanded to determine, in light of Fosler, whether the threat specification stated an offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a self-defense instruction was required | Schumacher; self-defense evidence raised the defense | Schumacher’s theory was that MPs were intruders; insufficient evidence of reasonable belief | No error; instruction not required; evidence did not reasonably raise the defense |
| Whether the Article 134 threat specification states an offense | USBF had to determine validity under Fosler framework | Specification may fail to state offense | Remanded to CCA to consider in light of Fosler |
| Whether the military judge erred in not instructing on intruder theory for self-defense | Evidence could show unknown intruders justified self-defense | No evidence showing intruder perception given MPs’ appearance and statements | Rejected; intruder theory not reasonably raised |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lewis, 65 M.J. 85 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (standard for mandatory self-defense instruction; issue de novo review)
- United States v. Gillenwater, 43 M.J. 10 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (definition of in-issue evidence for affirmative defenses)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court, 1988) (framework for determining evidence sufficient to raise an affirmative defense)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- United States v. Rodwell, 20 M.J. 264 (C.M.A. 1985) (necessity of instructing on affirmative defenses when evidence reasonably raises them)
- United States v. Harris, 29 C.M.R. 810 (A.F.B.R. 1960) (deference to evidence resolving conflicts in favor of the accused)
- United States v. Fosler, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (remand framework for evaluating threat specifications under Article 134)