## Facts

- Private Angela James, a U.S. Army soldier, faced a general court-martial on charges that included writing checks without sufficient funds, disobeying the lawful order of a superior commissioned officer, and making false official statements to investigators.
- Before trial, defense counsel moved for a mental examination by a sanity board under R.C.M. 706, which provides for a formal inquiry into an accused’s mental condition by one or more physicians or clinical psychologists.
- In support of the motion, counsel represented that he had personally observed James behaving abnormally, that she was unable to respond coherently to his questions, and that she was not able to make decisions concerning her defense.
- The requested sanity board was not ordered.
- Instead, James received a short mental-status evaluation lasting about thirty minutes.
- The evaluator was a counselor who was not a physician or clinical psychologist, had never conducted a mental-status evaluation before, and had not been told the specific concerns raised by defense counsel.
- After the evaluation, the counselor completed a single-page form stating that James was mentally competent to stand trial.
- The military judge denied the defense request for a sanity board and proceeded with the court-martial, accepting James’s guilty pleas.
- On appeal to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, James argued that the denial of an R.C.M. 706 sanity board was error because the record presented to the military judge raised a substantial question about her competency.

## Issues

1. Whether the military judge abused his discretion by denying the defense motion for an R.C.M. 706 sanity board where defense counsel provided specific observations raising doubt about the accused’s competency to stand trial.
2. Whether a brief, non-physician, non-psychologist mental-status screening—conducted without knowledge of counsel’s stated concerns—was an adequate substitute for an R.C.M. 706 sanity board in assessing competency.

## Decision

- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals held that the military judge abused his discretion by denying the defense request for an R.C.M. 706 sanity board on the record presented.
- The court concluded that counsel’s detailed, first-hand descriptions of abnormal behavior and inability to communicate and make defense decisions were sufficient to require a formal R.C.M. 706 inquiry.
- The court determined that the brief mental-status evaluation by an unqualified and uninformed counselor did not adequately answer the competency question raised by the defense.
- The court set aside the findings and sentence and returned the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- R.C.M. 706 provides for a formal sanity board when there is reason to question an accused’s mental capacity to stand trial and assist counsel, or mental responsibility at the time of the alleged offenses.
- A military judge’s ruling on a request for an R.C.M. 706 inquiry is reviewed for abuse of discretion; discretion is exceeded when the record contains concrete facts that create a genuine doubt about competency and the judge refuses to order an appropriate evaluation.
- Defense counsel’s specific, first-hand observations about an accused’s inability to communicate coherently or make decisions about the defense are significant indicators of possible incompetence and may trigger the need for a sanity board.
- A short screening by a person who is neither a physician nor a clinical psychologist, especially one unaware of the defense’s stated concerns, generally cannot substitute for the function of an R.C.M. 706 sanity board.
- Proceeding to trial and accepting guilty pleas without resolving a genuine competency question risks invalid proceedings because competency is required for an accused to understand the process and participate meaningfully.

## Conclusion

United States v. James held that, where defense counsel provided specific observations indicating that the accused was behaving abnormally, could not respond coherently, and could not make decisions about her defense, the military judge abused his discretion by denying an R.C.M. 706 sanity board and relying instead on a brief, non-specialist mental-status screening; the appellate court set aside the findings and sentence and ordered further proceedings after proper evaluation.


United States v. James, 47 M.J. 641 (1997)