United States v. Binegar
55 M.J. 1 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a specific intent crime such as larceny, an accused's honest mistake of fact regarding their entitlement or authorization to take property is a valid defense if the mistake negates the required specific intent, even if the mistake was not reasonable.
Facts:
- In September 1995, Appellant began working in the Medical Logistics Office at Hanscom Air Force Base, where one of his duties was to order contact lenses for servicemembers.
- Air Force regulations stipulated that free contact lenses were only for personnel who required them for duty or medical reasons, and required specific purchase letters and fund cites for orders.
- Appellant’s supervisors regularly neglected these procedures, failed to provide him with formal training, and ordered contact lenses without the required documentation.
- One supervisor, SMSgt Kremer, informed Appellant he believed all clinic personnel were entitled to free lenses and instructed Appellant to order lenses for him without a purchase letter.
- Another supervisor, SSgt Smith, authorized Appellant to sign purchase orders on his behalf.
- Supervisors never reviewed monthly reports to check for improper billing and never informed Appellant that his method of ordering lenses was incorrect.
- Appellant ordered contact lenses for various servicemembers who provided only a prescription, filing the purchase orders and openly discussing the orders with the recipients.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was tried by a general court-martial at Hanscom Air Force Base in March 1997.
- The court-martial, composed of officer members, found Appellant guilty of larceny and conspiracy, contrary to his pleas.
- The convening authority approved the sentence on July 24, 1997.
- Appellant appealed his conviction to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion on November 1, 1999.
- Appellant sought further review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the highest military court, which granted review on April 12, 2000.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the military judge err in providing the court members a mistake of fact instruction for the specific intent crime of larceny that required the appellant’s mistake to be both 'honest and reasonable' instead of just 'honest'?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Sullivan
Yes, the military judge erred. For a specific intent crime like larceny, a mistake of fact need only be honest to serve as a defense if it negates the required mens rea. The offense of larceny under Article 121 requires a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, and an honest belief in one's authority to dispose of that property directly negates this intent. The military judge incorrectly reasoned that the appellant's mistake related only to a general intent element of the crime ('wrongfulness'), rather than to the specific intent to steal. This error was prejudicial because it lowered the government's burden of proof and the prosecutor explicitly argued that the appellant's mistake was unreasonable, creating a high probability the members convicted on that improper basis.
Dissenting - Chief Judge Crawford
No, the military judge did not abuse his discretion. The crime of larceny contains both a general intent element—the 'wrongful taking'—and a specific intent element—the 'intent to permanently deprive.' The appellant's mistake pertained to his authority to take the lenses, which relates to the general intent element of 'wrongful taking.' Therefore, the mistake was required to be both honest and reasonable. Furthermore, any potential error was harmless because the evidence, such as spelling names backwards on order forms, indicates the appellant's mistake was not honest in the first place.
Concurring - Judge Gierke
Yes, the military judge erred in giving the instruction. Larceny has two key elements: a general intent 'wrongful taking' and a specific intent 'to steal' or defraud. The appellant's asserted mistake of fact—that he was authorized to order the lenses—relates to both elements simultaneously. Because the mistake, if believed, would negate the specific intent to defraud the government, the less stringent 'honest mistake' standard must apply. An instruction covering the negation of specific intent would necessarily subsume any issue related to the general intent element, so the 'honest only' instruction should have been given.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the fundamental principle that a subjective, honest mistake of fact can negate the mens rea for a specific intent crime, regardless of its objective reasonableness. The decision clarifies the application of this defense in crimes with both general and specific intent elements, pushing back against a bifurcated analysis that would apply a stricter standard to the actus reus. By focusing on whether the mistake negates the highest level of intent required by the statute, the court reinforces a crucial protection for defendants, ensuring conviction for specific intent crimes rests on proof of a truly guilty mind, not merely on negligent or unreasonable conduct.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Binegar