United States v. Coffman
2006 CCA LEXIS 28, 62 M.J. 676, 2006 WL 408633 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an accused's statements during a guilty plea inquiry raise a potential defense, the military judge must explain the elements of that defense and resolve the factual inconsistency before accepting the plea. A plea is not provident if the judge fails to ensure the accused understands the potential defense they are waiving.
Facts:
- The appellant, a Marine serving in Iraq, was ordered to clean out a storage room in preparation for another platoon's arrival.
- The room contained several boxes that personnel had been instructed to dispose of, as well as items that appeared to have been left behind as trash.
- The appellant found an open box containing military gear with no name on it.
- He asked members of his platoon if the gear belonged to them but was unable to determine the owner.
- Believing the gear was ownerless and part of the items to be discarded, the appellant took it for his own use.
- He used the gear for about a month on patrols until confronted by his section leader.
- When confronted, the appellant falsely stated that he had purchased the gear.
- The gear, valued over $500, was later discovered to belong to another Marine in the appellant's battalion.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was tried by a military judge sitting as a special court-martial.
- The appellant pleaded guilty to one specification of making a false official statement and one specification of larceny.
- The military judge accepted the pleas and sentenced the appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, 45 days of confinement, and reduction to pay grade E-1.
- The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence.
- The case was submitted to the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals for automatic review.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals, on its own initiative, specified an issue for counsel to address: whether the appellant's guilty plea to larceny was provident.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the appellant's guilty plea to larceny provident where his statements to the military judge suggested he may have honestly believed the property was abandoned, thereby raising a potential mistake of fact defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Dorman, Chief Judge
No. The appellant's guilty plea to larceny was not provident because the record reveals a substantial basis to question the plea. The appellant’s statements during the plea inquiry raised the defense of mistake of fact, specifically that he honestly believed the property was abandoned. Abandoned property cannot be the subject of larceny, and an honest belief that property is abandoned is a complete defense to a specific intent crime like larceny. The military judge failed to resolve this inconsistency; instead of explaining the legal definition of 'abandoned property' and the elements of the mistake of fact defense, the judge asked leading 'yes' or 'no' questions that called for legal conclusions. This failure deprived the appellant of the ability to make a fully informed decision about his plea, rendering it improvident.
Analysis:
This decision underscores the military judge's critical gatekeeping role in accepting guilty pleas. It clarifies that a judge's duty extends beyond simply reciting the elements of the charged offense. When a defendant's factual account introduces matters inconsistent with guilt, such as a potential affirmative defense, the judge has an affirmative duty to explain the relevant law and resolve the contradiction. The ruling serves as a safeguard against defendants pleading guilty due to a misunderstanding of complex legal concepts like abandonment, thereby ensuring pleas are genuinely knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
