United States v. Binegar

55 M.J. 1 (2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D began work in the Medical Logistics Office (MLO) at Hanscom Air Force Base. D ordered contact lenses for service members who brought a prescription from the base Optometry Clinic to the MLO. Those who needed contact lenses to perform their duties or for a medical condition were entitled to receive them free of charge. Anyone else had to obtain contact lenses off-base and pay for the lenses themselves. The Optometry Clinic was required to produce a purchase letter for all prescriptions. If the lenses were required 'for the performance of duties,' the MLO was to code the purchase order with a 'fund cite' indicating the service member's section. Those that were required for a medical condition, the Optometry Clinic fund cite was used. The MLO generated monthly reports of how many lenses had been billed to each account. D's supervisors neglected to follow these procedures with any regularity. The Clinic rarely generated purchases letters, and MLO would order contact lenses without them. D's supervisor, Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) Kremer, testified that he believed that all clinic personnel were entitled to free contact lenses, even if not medically required. SMSgt Kremer had even instructed D to sign a purchase order for him to get free lenses soon after D began work at MLO. D's supervisors never reviewed the monthly reports and failed to provide D with formal training or specific guidelines for any of these procedures. The next supervisor, Staff Sergeant (SSgt) Smith, even authorized D to sign purchase orders for him between October 1995 to January 1996. D signed SSgt Smith's name to over 90% of the purchase orders filed between September 1995 and March 1996. D had no idea he was doing his job improperly. At trial, D requested a mistake of fact defense. D requested that the instruction be given without the instruction regarding 'it must be reasonable' because his defense must only be honest as larceny was a specific intent crime. The court refused. D was found guilty and appealed. His conviction was affirmed, and D appealed. D contends that the military judge at his court-martial erred in refusing to give an 'honest' mistake-of-fact instruction as requested.