## Facts

- Sergeant Stephen J. Schap visited his wife in the hospital, where she told him she was pregnant as a result of an extramarital affair.
- Schap remained calm, stayed with his wife for several minutes, and appeared concerned about her condition.
- Schap then went home and packed items consistent with preparation to leave, including a passport, clothing, toiletries, food, financial records, and money.
- Schap also obtained an eight-inch fighting knife.
- Over roughly the next hour, Schap worked out that his wife’s lover was Specialist Glover, a friend.
- After locating Glover at a phone booth near the barracks dining hall, Schap attacked him with the knife and ultimately decapitated him.
- Witnesses described aspects of Schap’s behavior during the attack as slow and rhythmic.
- Schap held up Glover’s severed head and calmly announced, “This is what happens when you commit adultery.”
- Schap returned to his car, changed clothes, put Glover’s head into an athletic bag, and went back to the hospital.
- In his wife’s hospital room, Schap screamed at her, thrust the head toward her, and placed it on her bedside table.
- Schap then calmly explained what he had done to medical personnel and police.
- A general court-martial found Schap guilty of premeditated murder, and he appealed, contending the evidence showed he acted in the heat of sudden passion and should have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than premeditated murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required reducing the conviction from premeditated murder to voluntary manslaughter because Schap acted in the heat of sudden passion upon learning of his wife’s affair.
2. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support a finding that Schap formed and carried out a premeditated intent to kill.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the premeditated-murder conviction.
- The court concluded the record supported a finding that Schap had time and opportunity for reflection and engaged in conduct consistent with planning and purposeful execution.
- The court rejected the claim that the killing was legally compelled to be treated as voluntary manslaughter based on sudden passion.

## Legal Principles

- Premeditation under military law may be formed in a short time, but it requires more than an uncontrolled, immediate reaction; it involves reflection and a conscious decision to kill.
- Voluntary manslaughter mitigates murder when an unlawful killing occurs in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation, before a reasonable cooling-off period.
- Evidence of steps taken before the killing (such as preparation, arming oneself, locating the victim, and methodical actions) can support an inference of premeditation and reduce the force of a heat-of-passion claim.
- Post-incident conduct and statements may be considered in assessing the actor’s mental state, including whether the actor appeared controlled, purposeful, or reflective.
- On appellate review, a conviction may be affirmed when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable factfinder could find the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

United States v. Schap affirmed a court-martial’s finding of premeditated murder where the accused, after learning of his wife’s adultery, prepared to leave, armed himself with a fighting knife, sought out the lover, killed and decapitated him, and then displayed the severed head while making declarative statements; the court held that these circumstances supported premeditation rather than a heat-of-sudden-passion mitigation to voluntary manslaughter.


United States v. Schap, 44 M.J. 512 (1996)