United States v. Mott

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Mott

71 M.J. 404, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 1039

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DecidedSeptember 19, 2012

DocketNo. 12-0604/NA

StatusPublished

This text of 71 M.J. 404 (United States v. Mott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Mott, 71 M.J. 404, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 1039 (Ark. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

CCA 200900115. Review granted on the following issues:

I. A LACK OF MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY DEFENSE EXISTS WHEN A MENTALLY DISEASED ACCUSED CANNOT APPRECIATE THE WRONGFULNESS OF HIS CONDUCT. HERE, EXPERTS TESTIFIED THAT APPELLANT’S PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA AND SEVERE DELUSIONS CREATED HIS SUBJECTIVE BELIEF THAT STABBING THE VICTIM WAS JUSTIFIED. BUT THE MILITARY JUDGE AND NMCCA ADOPTED AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR “WRONGFULNESS.” WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ACCUSED CAN APPRECIATE THE WRONGFULNESS OF HIS CONDUCT?

II. UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AN ACCUSED’S STATEMENT TO INVESTIGATORS IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF IT WAS OBTAINED WITH A VOLUNTARY, KNOWING, AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER WHERE THE ACCUSED UNDERSTANDS HIS RIGHTS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAIVING THEM. HERE, EXPERT WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT UNDERSTAND HIS RIGHTS OR THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAIVING THEM BECAUSE OF HIS SEVERE MENTAL DISEASE. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY ADMITTING THE STATEMENT?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CCA 200900115. Review granted on the following issues:

I. A LACK OF MENTAL RESPONSIBILITY DEFENSE EXISTS WHEN A MENTALLY DISEASED ACCUSED CANNOT APPRECIATE THE WRONGFULNESS OF HIS CONDUCT. HERE, EXPERTS TESTIFIED THAT APPELLANT’S PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA AND SEVERE DELUSIONS CREATED HIS SUBJECTIVE BELIEF THAT STABBING THE VICTIM WAS JUSTIFIED. BUT THE MILITARY JUDGE AND NMCCA ADOPTED AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR “WRONGFULNESS.” WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD IN DETERMINING WHETHER AN ACCUSED CAN APPRECIATE THE WRONGFULNESS OF HIS CONDUCT?

II. UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, AN ACCUSED’S STATEMENT TO INVESTIGATORS IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF IT WAS OBTAINED WITH A VOLUNTARY, KNOWING, AND INTELLIGENT WAIVER WHERE THE ACCUSED UNDERSTANDS HIS RIGHTS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAIVING THEM. HERE, EXPERT WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT UNDERSTAND HIS RIGHTS OR THE CONSEQUENCES OF WAIVING THEM BECAUSE OF HIS SEVERE MENTAL DISEASE. DID THE MILITARY JUDGE ERR BY ADMITTING THE STATEMENT?

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 M.J. 404, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 1039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mott-armfor-2012.