Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces • 2001

United States v. Binegar

55 M.J. 1 | 2001 CAAF LEXIS 544

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an honest mistake about authorization is a larceny defense when that mistake could negate the accused’s specific intent to steal; the belief need not also be reasonable.

Background

Senior Airman Charles Binegar worked in the Medical Logistics Office at Hanscom Air Force Base, where he ordered contact lenses for servicemembers. Free lenses were available only when needed for duty performance or a medical condition. Regulations generally required documentation and proper funding codes, but the office’s actual practices were lax. Supervisors sometimes authorized orders without the required paperwork, failed to train Binegar clearly, and did not review billing reports. One supervisor had Binegar order free lenses for him without supplying the usual prescription or purchase letter.

Binegar was charged with stealing military contact lenses by ordering them for servicemembers who were not entitled to receive them free, and with conspiring to steal those lenses. He maintained that he honestly believed he was authorized to order lenses for members who presented prescriptions from the Optometry Clinic. At trial, the military judge instructed the members that Binegar’s mistake had to be both honest and reasonable. The members convicted him of four larceny specifications and one conspiracy specification. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the military judge erred by instructing that Binegar’s mistake of fact had to be both honest and reasonable, rather than merely honest.

Holding

Yes. Because Binegar’s asserted mistake about his authority to issue government-funded lenses could negate larceny’s required specific intent to steal, an honest mistake alone was a defense.

Reasoning

Article 121 requires the Government to prove that an accused acted with a specific intent to permanently deprive or defraud the owner of property. Military larceny precedent recognizes that an honest mistake about one’s entitlement or authorization to take or dispose of property can defeat that specific intent.

The military judge treated Binegar’s asserted belief—that he was authorized to order lenses for servicemembers who had prescriptions—as relating only to the general wrongfulness of the taking. On that view, the judge required the belief to be reasonable as well as honest. The court held that this was the wrong inquiry.

The controlling question is whether the claimed mistake concerns a fact that would preclude the specific intent required for the offense. If Binegar honestly believed he was authorized to order the lenses under the office’s established practices, that belief could mean he did not intend to steal from or defraud the Government. The mistake therefore went to the required specific intent.

The court’s prior decisions, especially United States v. Turner, established that an honest belief that a superior authorized the disposition of government property is a defense to larceny. The military judge did not adequately explain why Binegar’s asserted belief in authorization differed from that kind of mistake.

Issue #2

Whether the erroneous mistake-of-fact instruction materially prejudiced Binegar.

Holding

Yes. The instruction was not harmless because it gave the Government an easier path to conviction and the Government relied on that path at trial.

Reasoning

The honest-and-reasonable instruction reduced the Government’s practical burden. Instead of disproving that Binegar honestly held the claimed belief, the Government could obtain a conviction by showing either that he did not honestly hold it or that the belief was unreasonable.

Trial counsel expressly emphasized this alternative during argument, telling the members that the defense failed if Binegar’s claimed mistake was unreasonable even if he actually believed it. That argument directly exploited the erroneous instruction.

The Government presented substantial evidence that Binegar’s conduct was unreasonable. Consequently, there was a reasonable possibility that the members rejected the defense because they found his belief unreasonable, rather than because they found he lacked an honest belief. The error therefore materially prejudiced both the larceny and conspiracy findings.

Issue #3

Whether the court needed to decide the evidentiary issue concerning excluded state-of-mind hearsay.

Holding

No. The court did not reach that issue because reversal was required based on the instructional error.

Reasoning

Having set aside the findings and sentence because of the incorrect mistake-of-fact instruction, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether the military judge also wrongly excluded defense evidence offered to show Binegar’s state of mind.

Concurrences

Judge Gierke

Reasoning

Judge Gierke agreed that the convictions must be reversed, but he used a more element-specific framework. He emphasized that larceny contains both a general-intent element—the wrongful taking, obtaining, or withholding of property—and a specific-intent element—the intent permanently to deprive or defraud another of the property.

In his view, courts should first identify the precise fact the accused claims to have misunderstood and then determine which statutory element or elements that fact affects. A mistake tied only to a general-intent element must be both honest and reasonable; a mistake tied to a specific-intent element need only be honest.

Binegar’s claimed misunderstanding about his authority to order the lenses affected both elements. It bore on whether the orders were wrongful, but it also bore on whether Binegar specifically intended to defraud the United States by supplying lenses to ineligible persons. Because an honest belief in authorization would negate the specific intent to defraud, the members should have been instructed that honesty alone sufficed.

A separate instruction for each element was unnecessary. An instruction accurately explaining that an honest mistake could negate the specific intent would have subsumed the more demanding general-intent instruction.

Dissents

Chief Justice Crawford

Reasoning

Chief Justice Crawford would have affirmed. She viewed Binegar’s alleged mistake as concerning only the general-intent element of whether his taking of the contact lenses was wrongful, not the separate specific-intent element of permanently depriving or defrauding the Government.

Her approach required the court to parse each statutory element and assign the appropriate mental state to it. Although larceny has a specific-intent component, not every factual mistake in a larceny case necessarily bears on that component. A mistake about the lawfulness of receiving government-funded lenses, she reasoned, was a mistake about the wrongful-taking element and therefore had to be both honest and reasonable.

Chief Justice Crawford distinguished cases such as Turner, Gillenwater, Rowan, and Sicley because those cases involved mistakes that directly negated an accused’s intent to permanently deprive or defraud. In her view, Binegar did not claim he intended to return the lenses; contact lenses were personal items not realistically subject to temporary borrowing and return.

She also concluded that any instructional error was harmless. Evidence that Binegar altered or reversed names on purchase orders, along with the absence of the documentation normally associated with authorized lens orders, supported the conclusion that he did not honestly believe his conduct was lawful.