United States v. Maynulet
2010 WL 744213, 2010 CAAF LEXIS 199, 68 M.J. 374 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of mistake of law is not available based on a defendant's subjective, mistaken belief about the law; the defense requires evidence that the defendant reasonably relied on a specific, erroneous official statement, decision, or pronouncement of the law.
Facts:
- Captain Maynulet commanded an armor company in Iraq.
- On May 21, 2004, his unit pursued a vehicle carrying a high-value target, which crashed after a high-speed chase.
- Maynulet and his soldiers found the driver severely wounded, unarmed, and lying on the ground.
- A medic informed Maynulet that the wounded driver 'wasn’t going to make it.'
- After several minutes passed, Maynulet radioed his unit to stand by for friendly fire and then shot the wounded driver twice, killing him.
- Maynulet had received Law of War (LOW) and Rules of Engagement (ROE) training prior to deployment.
- During his deployment, Maynulet carried an ROE card that explicitly stated: 'Do not engage anyone who has surrendered or is out of battle due to sickness or wounds.'
- Maynulet testified at trial that he shot the driver 'to put him out of [his] misery,' believing it was the honorable and authorized thing to do based on his interpretation of the training he received.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant, Maynulet, was convicted by a general court-martial of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter.
- The convening authority approved the court-martial's findings and sentence.
- Maynulet, as the appellant, appealed to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the highest military court, granted Maynulet's petition for review on the issue of the mistake of law instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a military judge err by refusing to instruct the court members on the defense of mistake of law when the defendant claims to have misinterpreted general training materials, but there is no evidence of an erroneous official pronouncement that authorized the defendant's actions?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Baker
No, the military judge did not err. The affirmative defense of mistake of law is not raised when a defendant's action is based on a subjective misunderstanding of the law rather than reasonable reliance on an erroneous official pronouncement. The court reasoned that while ignorance of the law is generally not a defense, a narrow exception exists for reliance on an official misstatement of the law. Here, Maynulet's claim that he was confused by a training slide stating 'Humanity — unnecessary suffering' does not constitute an official pronouncement authorizing his action. This interpretation was contradicted by other training materials explicitly stating to 'collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe,' and, most importantly, by the unambiguous ROE card he carried, which forbade engaging wounded combatants. The record contained no evidence of any affirmative assurance from a person in authority that a 'mercy killing' was lawful, making his personal belief insufficient to warrant a mistake of law instruction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the narrow scope of the mistake of law defense within military justice, particularly concerning the Law of War. The court firmly rejected the notion that a service member's subjective misinterpretation of general training can excuse a violation of clear, specific rules. This holding reinforces the principle that the defense requires a concrete, erroneous statement from an official source, not a defendant's personal deduction from ambiguous materials. The ruling underscores the high standard of accountability for commissioned officers and limits the ability of defendants to use complex legal frameworks like the Rules of Engagement to justify illegal actions.
