United States v. Rivera , 2001 CAAF LEXIS 496 ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Jose M. RIVERA, Sergeant
U.S. Army, Appellant
No. 00-0630
Crim. App. No. 9701863
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued February 7, 2001
Decided May 2, 2001
BAKER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
CRAWFORD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, GIERKE, and EFFRON, JJ.,
joined.
Counsel
For Appellant: Captain Sean S. Park (argued); Colonel Adele
H. Odegard, Lieutenant Colonel David A. Mayfield, and Major
Jonathan F. Potter (on brief).
For Appellee: Captain William J. Nelson (argued); Colonel
David L. Hayden, Lieutenant Colonel Edith M. Rob, and
Captain Daniel G. Brookhart (on brief).
Military Judge: James J. Smith
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
Judge BAKER delivered the opinion of the Court.
On August 7 and November 20-21, 1997, appellant was
tried by a general court-martial at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina. Contrary to his pleas, appellant was found
guilty, by a military judge sitting alone, of two
specifications of assault consummated by a battery, in
violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice,
10 USC § 928. Appellant was sentenced to a bad-conduct
discharge, confinement for 30 days, total forfeitures, and
reduction to Private E-1. The convening authority approved
the adjudged sentence.
On June 16, 2000, the Court of Criminal Appeals
affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. We
granted review on November 8, 2000, of the following
issues:
I. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT
THE FINDING OF GUILTY TO SPECIFICATION 1 OF THE CHARGE
(ASSAULT CONSUMMATED BY A BATTERY ON A CHILD UNDER THE
AGE OF SIXTEEN) WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
OF PARENTAL DISCIPLINE DID NOT RENDER APPELLANT’S
ACTION LAWFUL.
II. WHETHER ONE PUNCH IN THE STOMACH TO A FOURTEEN-YEAR-
OLD MALE, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY PHYSICAL INJURY
OR TRAUMA INCLUDING BRUISING, WELTING, OR BLEEDING,
OVERCOMES THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF PARENTAL
DISCIPLINE.
2
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
We hold, based on the evidence of record, that a
rational factfinder could have found beyond a reasonable
doubt that appellant was guilty of assault consummated by a
battery on a child and that such assault was not justified
under the parental-discipline defense. We further
conclude, as a matter of law, that a single punch can,
without evidence of actual physical harm, overcome the
affirmative defense of parental discipline, where as here,
the trier of fact found beyond a reasonable doubt that the
force used created a substantial risk of serious bodily
injury and was unreasonable under the circumstances.
FACTS
Although appellant was convicted of assault
consummated by a battery against both his step-daughter and
his step-son, at issue is only appellant’s assault of his
step-son, Edward. At the age of 13, Edward brought home a
report card with several Ds and Fs. Immediately after
reviewing the report card, appellant “started screaming”
and told Edward that he needed to “get [his] stuff
straight.” Edward testified at trial that appellant then
“got mad and punched me in my stomach and I fell down....”
Edward testified that he “stayed down” until appellant
“stopped talking” and left.
3
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues that based on the Government’s proof,
no reasonable factfinder could find beyond a reasonable
doubt that the purpose and degree of force used by
appellant moved on a continuum from reasonable parental
discipline to criminal conduct. Because the test of legal
sufficiency under specification 1 of the Charge is
intertwined with resolution of Issue II, we treat the
questions together.
"The test for" legal sufficiency "is whether,
considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, a reasonable factfinder could have found all
the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt." United
States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (CMA 1987)(citing Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
In the present case the Government had the burden of
presenting the factfinder with proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that appellant attempted "with unlawful force or
violence to do bodily harm to another person, whether or
not the attempt...is consummated." Art. 128 (a). Because
appellant put in issue the parental-discipline defense, the
Government had the additional burden of refuting beyond a
reasonable doubt appellant’s defense of parental
discipline.
4
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
Appellant argues that he used force with appropriate
motive, to discipline his child for poor performance in
school. He also argues that the force used was necessary
parental discipline and that his single blow did not cause
substantial risk of serious bodily injury. Appellant
argues this is evidenced by the absence of any physical
harm to Edward.1 Edward did not receive any welts, bruises,
or other marks, and he did not go to a doctor or to the
hospital. The record does not reflect any mental distress.
Edward did not visit a mental health professional, advise
his friends of mental trauma, or convey to the trier of
fact mental distress at the time he testified that he was
punched in the stomach and fell down.2
In United States v. Brown, 26 M.J. 148, 150-51
(1988), and United States v. Robertson, 36 M.J. 190,
191-92 (1992), this Court applied the standards of the
Model Penal Code in determining whether the Government
overcame appellant’s defense of parental discipline.
Section 3.08 (1), Model Penal Code (ALI 1985), reprinted in
1
There was no testimony as to the condition of his stomach immediately
after Edward was struck.
2
The Government has not relied on mental distress as the predicate for
prosecution. As a result we need not determine here what degree of
mental distress is so unreasonable or extreme as to overcome an
affirmative defense of parental discipline, and we decline to do so in
the abstract.
5
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
ALI Model Penal Code and Commentaries 136 (1985), states
that force may be used by parents or guardians when
(a) the force is used for the purpose of safeguarding
or promoting the welfare of the minor, including the
prevention or punishment of his misconduct; and
(b) the force used is not designed to cause or known to
create a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily
injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or mental distress or
gross degradation....
As a result, both the Government and appellant have
argued this case on the basis of the Model Penal Code.
Because this Court’s conclusions in Robertson and Brown
relied, in part, on the existence of numerous blows as well
as physical evidence of harm, and because the parties in
this case do not contest that there was only one punch (of
disputed force) to the stomach, for which there was no
documented medical manifestation, this case tests anew the
scope of the parental-discipline defense.
Jurisprudence in the area of parental discipline must
be developed with caution. In this area of law there is an
inherent tension between the privacy and sanctity of the
family, including the freedom to raise children as parents
see fit, and the interest of the state in the safety and
well-being of children. The affirmative defense of
parental discipline resides at a crossroad of these two
6
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
significant interests. Caution is also advisable because
society accepts some, but not all, forms of corporeal
punishment. It is the duty of appellate courts to say what
the law is; not to make moral judgments about what the law
should be. Moreover, the enormous variety of variables
that affect human interaction and which place the family at
the core of a child’s social interaction cautions against
black letter rules of conduct.
One need not look to the Bible, Dickens, or Twain to
understand that parental discipline is as necessary as it
is varied and that parental discipline has always had a
physical component. We need only look to our own
experience. Experience also teaches that a finger to the
eye, or a slap to the head, can cause as much harm as a
closed fist. Punches can be playful or even affectionate.
For these reasons, we eschew a per se rule.
Brown established a test of contextual reasonableness
in determining when proper parental motive turns to
criminal anger, or necessary force becomes a substantial
risk of serious bodily harm. Clearly what is reasonable
between a father and his 13-year-old son may be
unreasonable with an infant. However, human experience
also teaches that a single punch to the torso or head can
kill or cause serious bodily injury. This conclusion does
7
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
not rest on specialized medical knowledge, but rather on
the everyday "common sense and [their] knowledge of human
nature and of the ways of the world" expected of triers of
fact, who have been to the playground, trained in the
combat arms, or read the sports page. United States v.
Oakley, 11 USCMA 187, 191, 29 CMR 3, 7 (1960) (Ferguson,
J., concurring).
We expect a lot of our servicemembers, and sometimes
we expect more of them than of their civilian counterparts.
For instance, because members of the Armed Forces are
accountable to their superiors in ways that a civilian is
not, this Court has concluded that the probability of
truthfulness for a military witness is greater than one
would find with a comparable civilian witness. United
States v. Wood, 25 M.J. 46 (1987). We expect that military
deployments and rotations will impose upon military
families stress not found in most civilian occupations. At
the same time, we expect our military members to take care
of their families. We also expect servicemembers to
understand and apply discriminate use of force, and to
understand that a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine wields
8
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
an extraordinary potential for force based on his or her
special fitness, background, and training.3
As a result, we hold that in the context of this case
the members could have properly concluded that one closed-
fist punch to the stomach can cause substantial risk of
serious bodily injury as contemplated by this Court’s
decisions in Brown and Robertson. We also hold that the
burden of establishing substantial risk can be met without
physical manifestation of actual harm.4 A rule that
requires physical evidence of injury invites one blow too
many.
While we do not adopt a per se rule involving closed
fists, as some states have, we recognize that a closed-fist
punch bears certain burdens, which carry forward through
case law. Use of a closed fist does not prove ill motive;
however, it may more readily allow the factfinder to infer
ill motive and undermine a claim of proper intent. And
while use of a closed fist does not per se risk serious
injury, as compared to a slap or a spank, a fist amplifies
3
This same rationale would apply to a civilian with comparable
fitness, background, and training.
4
Just as a person firing a weapon and missing still causes a substantial
risk of serious bodily injury for which there will be no physiological
evidence, a blow to the head or torso that one time fortuitously fails
to impact a vital organ or the temple, nevertheless risks serious
bodily injury the next time.
9
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
force magnifying the likelihood that a punch will be found
to create a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
Having concluded that use of a single punch to the
stomach can be legally sufficient to prove an assault upon
a child, what is left to decide is whether in this case,
applying Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at 319, the
prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
appellant’s motive was improper or that the force he used
was unreasonable under the circumstances. RCM 916(b),
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2000 ed.).
It is beyond peradventure of doubt that a very bad
report card is an appropriate predicate for parental
discipline. In this case, the record also documents
appellant’s desire to improve Edward’s scholastic
performance. We need not look into appellant’s psyche to
measure the degree to which he was also motivated by anger
or whether the trier of fact could have reasonably
concluded his motive was more anger than discipline. For
appellant’s claim is defeated by our conclusion that the
members could have properly found that the force he used
was unreasonable. Three facts are critical. Edward was
struck with a closed fist; he was punched. He was struck
in the stomach. And, based on Edward’s testimony, and
applying Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at 319, the members
10
United States v. Rivera, 00-0630/AR
could reasonably conclude that he was struck with
sufficient force so as to fall down, and thus with
sufficient force so as to cause a substantial risk of
serious bodily injury when punched. And it was reasonably
within the common knowledge of the members that a blow to
the stomach that is strong enough to knock a 13-year-old
down creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury.
The decision of the United States Army Court of
Criminal Appeals is affirmed.
11