United States v. Stanley
2012 CAAF LEXIS 289
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Stanley pleaded guilty to marijuana possession with intent to distribute, and to use/distribute methamphetamines on divers occasions, AWOL, disobeying a lawful order, and adultery; he pled not guilty to premeditated murder specifications and conspiracy to commit murder and was found guilty of all but conspiracy; sentence included life confinement, forfeiture of pay, dishonorable discharge, and a reduction to E-1 with credit for 271 days.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence; this Court granted review to consider whether the military judge erred by omitting escalation of force in self-defense instructions, and addressed a related Article 134 adulterery issue.
- The issue before the Court was whether the escalation-of-force principle should have been included in self-defense instructions given some evidence of escalating conflict at the farmhouse.
- Stanley’s co-defendants Werner, Colvin, and Hymer were involved in growing marijuana and manufacturing meth, leading to a chaotic, fast-moving confrontation during which multiple shots were fired.
- The trial military judge provided self-defense and defense-of-another instructions and additional provocation/mutual-fighting/withdrawal instructions; no party objected to the instructions at trial.
- The Court of Appeals’ ultimate disposition: affirm the Army CCA’s decision in part, vacate findings on Charge VI and its specification and the sentence, and remand for further consideration in light of Fosler.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether escalation of force was required in self-defense instructions | Stanley argued escalation instruction was warranted | Stanley contends evidence showed escalation; Colvin’s version supports escalation | No escalation instruction required; not 'in issue' |
| Whether self-defense instructions were adequate without escalation language | Self-defense was raised; escalation unnecessary | Instructions sufficient given record | Adequate; no error in omitting escalation language |
| Whether mutual combat/withdrawal concepts affected the instruction need | Argues escalation arises from mutual combat dynamics | Record did not establish mutual combat triggering escalation | Not warranted to add escalation instruction |
| Effect of trial evidence and foreseeability on instruction adequacy | Record contained some evidence supporting self-defense elements | Record does not establish escalation sufficient to compel added instruction | Instruction proper given the record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lewis, 65 M.J. 85 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (some evidence standard for affirmative defenses; in issue test for self-defense instructions)
- United States v. Cardwell, 15 M.J. 124 (C.M.A. 1983) (initial aggressor may regain self-defense rights upon escalation or withdrawal)
- United States v. Dearing, 63 M.J. 478 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (escalation of force framework in mutual combat situations)
- United States v. McDonald, 57 M.J. 18 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (affirmative defense instruction requirements when evidence raises defense)
- United States v. O’Neal, 16 C.M.A. 33 (1966) (mutual combat rules and self-defense limitations)
- United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (deadly force distinctions in self-defense context)