United States v. Oglivie
Military Justice Reports 1069 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Altering an unofficial, unauthenticated photocopy of a public record does not constitute the crime of altering a public record under Article 134, UCMJ. Furthermore, an honest but unreasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime like making a false official statement, but it is not a defense to a general intent crime like bigamy.
Facts:
- In December 1986, the appellant married his first wife, Amparo, while stationed in Panama.
- After being reassigned to Germany and then Oklahoma, the appellant had limited contact with Amparo, who remained in Panama.
- In the fall of 1988, Amparo called the appellant and informed him that she had filed for divorce in Panama and that there was 'nothing between the two of us.'
- The appellant believed he was legally divorced based on this phone call.
- In November 1988, the Red Cross contacted the appellant regarding Amparo's hospitalization and referred to her as his 'ex-wife.'
- When a finance clerk required a divorce decree to terminate his dependent housing allowance, the appellant took another sergeant's decree, made a copy, and inserted his and Amparo's names into the text of the copy.
- In December 1988, the appellant married his second wife, Jackeline.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was tried by a military judge sitting as a special court-martial.
- The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of altering a public record.
- The military judge found the appellant guilty, contrary to his pleas, of signing a false official statement (two specifications), wrongful appropriation, and bigamy.
- A sentence was approved by the convening authority.
- The appellant's case was then reviewed by the U.S. Army Court of Military Review.
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 creating and altering an unofficial, unauthenticated photocopy of a public record, without disturbing the original document, constitute the crime of altering a public record under Article 134, UCMJ?
Opinions:
Majority - Foreman, Senior Judge
No, altering an unofficial, unauthenticated photocopy of a public record does not constitute the crime of altering a public record under Article 134, UCMJ. The court reasoned that the purpose of the statute is to protect the integrity of the government's official documents, not unofficial copies. The appellant created and altered a photocopy but did not disturb the original public record itself. The court held that such a photocopy is not a 'public record' within the meaning of the statute. Additionally, the court found the evidence for the false official statement charge insufficient because it is a specific intent crime, and the appellant's honest mistake of fact that he was divorced served as a valid defense. However, the court affirmed the bigamy conviction because bigamy is a general intent crime, requiring a mistake of fact to be both honest and reasonable. The appellant's belief was deemed not reasonable, as a reasonable person would have taken further steps to confirm a divorce before remarrying.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies two key areas of military criminal law: the definition of a 'public record' and the application of the mistake of fact defense. It significantly narrows the scope of the offense of altering a public record, limiting it to actions that affect the integrity of official government documents themselves, not unofficial copies. The opinion also provides a clear illustration of the distinction between the mistake of fact defense for specific intent crimes (where only honesty is required) versus general intent crimes (where the mistake must also be reasonable). This reinforces the different mental state requirements for different offenses and provides a guiding precedent for future cases involving similar defenses.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Oglivie