## Facts

- An Army officer took his wife and two infant sons for a drive near Athens, Greece.
- He stopped the vehicle and asked his wife to check on their three-month-old son; when she leaned into the back seat, he repeatedly struck her with a wooden club, causing severe injuries.
- During a guilty-plea providence inquiry to aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, he described a fragmented memory: he recalled seeing his wife with a pillow over the baby’s face and then recalled striking her, but claimed not to remember the remainder of the assault.
- Despite incomplete recollection, he stated he was convinced—based on the evidence—that he committed each element of aggravated assault as explained by the military judge, and the judge accepted the guilty plea.
- In a contested trial on attempted premeditated murder arising from the same incident, he again relied on partial memory and asserted “little awareness” during the attack, advancing a theory akin to diminished responsibility or automatism.
- The panel convicted him of attempted premeditated murder, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the accused’s statements during the providence inquiry (partial amnesia and claimed diminished awareness) reasonably raised partial mental responsibility or automatism, requiring the military judge sua sponte to explain the defenses, further inquire, or reject the guilty plea.
2. Whether the trial evidence reasonably raised automatism, requiring the military judge sua sponte to instruct the panel on automatism.

## Decision

- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.
- The court held the military judge did not abuse discretion in accepting the guilty plea because the accused, though lacking full memory, acknowledged the elements and accepted the government’s evidence as establishing his guilt.
- The court held neither the providence inquiry nor the trial record reasonably raised automatism or partial mental responsibility.
- Because automatism was not reasonably raised at trial, the military judge had no sua sponte duty to instruct the panel on that defense.

## Legal Principles

- A guilty plea may be provident despite incomplete memory if the accused knowingly and voluntarily admits guilt by accepting reliable evidence establishing each element and does not create a substantial conflict with guilt.
- A military judge must inquire into and explain potential defenses during a providence inquiry only when the accused’s statements reasonably raise a defense; ambiguous claims of memory loss or diminished awareness, paired with clear admissions, generally do not.
- Automatism is a narrow defense requiring evidence that the accused’s acts were involuntary (i.e., not the product of conscious control); partial amnesia or after-the-fact lack of recollection, without supporting evidence of involuntariness, does not reasonably raise automatism.
- A military judge has a sua sponte duty to instruct on a special defense only when the evidence places the defense reasonably in issue.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the guilty plea and attempted premeditated murder conviction, ruling that partial amnesia and generalized claims of diminished awareness did not, without affirmative evidence of involuntary action or intent-negating impairment, require sua sponte inquiry into mental-responsibility defenses or an automatism instruction.


United States v. Axelson, 65 M.J. 501 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2007)