United States v. Torres
2015 CAAF LEXIS 451
| C.A.A.F. | 2015Background
- Appellant was convicted at a general court-martial of one specification of aggravated assault under Article 128 UCMJ, for choking his wife with force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm.
- Defense sought a voluntariness instruction arguing the assault occurred during an epileptic postictal state rendering conduct involuntary; the military judge declined this and gave a lack of mental responsibility instruction under R.C.M. 916(k)(l).
- The majority finds error in the instruction handling but concludes the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence at trial.
- Facts show the May 12–13, 2008 incident involved heavy alcohol use, assault sequence during the night, the wife escaping, and Appellant’s later inquiries about his wife.
- Evidence included competing expert and sanity-board opinions about automatism, postictal state, and alcohol-related factors; defense argued involuntariness, Government argued voluntary conduct.
- The opinion later holds that automatism may negate the actus reus in automatism cases and requires proper jury instruction when raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness instruction denial | Government contends voluntariness was adequately addressed by existing instructions. | Appellant argues the defense-requested voluntariness instruction should have been given. | Error to deny voluntariness instruction; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Automatism instruction when raised | Government argues traditional mens rea/actus reus framework suffices. | Appellant argues automatism should be treated as negating either mens rea or actus reus. | In automatism-raised cases, judge must instruct that automatism may negate actus reus |
Key Cases Cited
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (concurrence of evil-meaning mind with evil-doing hand required for criminal liability)
- United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115 (1980) (requires both mens rea and actus reus for offense; involuntary acts complicate liability)
- United States v. Olvera, 4 C.M.A. 134, 15 C.M.R. 134 (1954) (epilepsy seizures may negate mens rea; automatism considerations discussed)
- United States v. Rooks, 29 M.J. 291 (C.M.A.1989) (seizures may render accused unable to form mens rea)
- United States v. Berri, 33 M.J. 337 (C.M.A.1991) (evidence of unconsciousness may suggest lack of specific intent; actus reus/mens rea discussion)
- United States v. McDonald, 57 M.J. 18 (C.A.A.F.2002) (de novo review of military judge instructions; standard of harmless error)