United States v. Tucker
2017 CAAF LEXIS 506
C.A.A.F.2017Background
- Appellant Steven M. Tucker pled guilty to two specifications alleging unlawfully providing alcohol to persons under 21 under Article 134, UCMJ, among other charges; the military judge accepted the pleas after instructing that the mens rea for the Article 134 offense was "negligence."
- Tucker was convicted and sentenced to 42 months confinement and a bad-conduct discharge; convening authority approved 36 months and a BCD.
- On appeal, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) affirmed, holding that Article 134’s reference to "disorders and neglects" incorporates a negligence mens rea for the offense.
- Tucker argued on further review that the proper mental state is at least recklessness and that Elonis v. United States requires a statutory mens rea be considered before convicting based on mental-state ambiguity.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) rejected the CCA’s reading: it held that the word "neglects" in Article 134 describes a failure to perform a duty (an objective description), not a statutory mens rea requirement of negligence.
- Because the CCA misinterpreted Article 134, the CAAF set aside the CCA decision and remanded the record to the Army JAG for return to the CCA to reevaluate the case in light of Elonis and United States v. Haverty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the phrase "disorders and neglects" in Article 134 imposes a negligence mens rea that precludes application of Elonis | CCA/Government: "neglects" equates to negligence, so the statute supplies a negligence mens rea | Tucker: The mental-state required is at least recklessness; "neglects" does not supply mens rea | CAAF: "neglects" is an objective description of failing a duty, not a statutory mens rea; CCA erred and case must be reconsidered under Elonis and Haverty |
Key Cases Cited
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (statutory mens rea requirement critical to criminal liability for mental-state ambiguous statutes)
- United States v. Haverty, 76 M.J. 199 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (post-Elonis guidance for military cases addressing mens rea issues)
- United States v. Schell, 72 M.J. 339 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (plain-language statutory interpretation framework)
- EV v. United States, 75 M.J. 331 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (plain-language rule and statutory construction principles)
- United States v. Phillips, 70 M.J. 161 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (use of common and ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Tucker, 75 M.J. 872 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2016) (CCA decision holding "neglects" imposes negligence mens rea)