UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

HAIGHT, CAMPANELLA, and PENLAND 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Private First Class JONATHAN D. HOOK 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20121115 

Headquarters, United States Army Alaska 

Stefan R. Wolfe, Military Judge 

Lieutenant Colonel Keven J. Kercher, Acting Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Captain Robert H. Meek, III, JA; Frank J. Spinner. Esq. (on brief). 

For Appellee: Major A.G. Courie, III, JA; Major Daniel D. Derner, JA; Captain 

Timothy C. Donahue, JA (on brief). 

23 October 2015 

----------------------------------- 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

----------------------------------- 

PENLAND, Judge: 

 A panel of officer and enlisted members sitting as a general court-martial 

convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of wrongful possession and use of an 

anabolic steroid, trenbolone acetate, one specification of aggravated assault by 

intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm upon a child under the age of sixteen 

years, two specifications of aggravated assault with a means likely to produce death 

or grievous bodily harm, two specifications of assault consummated by a battery 

upon a child under the age of sixteen years, eight specifications of assault 

consummated by a battery, one specification of child endangerment, and one 

specification of communicating a threat, in violation of Articles 112a, 128, 134, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 912a, 928, 934 (2006; 2012) 

[hereinafter UCMJ]. The panel sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, 

confinement for eighteen years, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction 

to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence and 

credited appellant with 164 days against the confinement term. 
HOOK — ARMY 20121115 

2

We review this case under Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises three 

assignments of error, none of which merit discussion or relief. We have also 

considered matters personally raised by appellant pursuant to United States v. 

Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982); our disposition of a matter not raised by 

appellant renders them moot. 

Appellant was convicted of two specifications under Article 112a, alleging his 

wrongful possession and use, respectively, of “an Anabolic Steroid, Trenbolone 

Acetate, a schedule III controlled substance.” NH testified that appellant used a 

substance he described with no greater specificity than as anabolic steroids. 

Investigator CR also testified that he seized from appellant’s refrigerator a container 

labeled with, “Anabolic Research Labs.” The military judge ruled that any 

additional words on the label purporting to identify its exact contents was 

inadmissible hearsay, and the government offered no evidence to support the 

allegation that the substance was trenbolone acetate. 

The standard of review for legal sufficiency is whether, considering all 

evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any reasonable fact-finder 

could have found all of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); United States v. Tollinchi, 54 

M.J. 80, 82 (C.A.A.F. 2000). Applying this standard to Charge I and its 

specifications, we answer in the negative with respect to the specific identity of the 

controlled substance as trenbolone acetate. 

CONCLUSION

The findings of guilty of Charge I and its Specifications are set aside. The 

affected Charge and its Specifications are DISMISSED. 

The remaining findings of guilty are AFFIRMED. 

Reassessing the sentence in accordance with the principles of United States v. 

Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11, 15-16 (C.A.A.F. 2013) and United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 

305, 308 (C.M.A. 1986), we are confident the panel would have adjudged the same 

sentence absent the dismissed charge and its specifications. We recognize, based on 

the government’s sentencing concessions at trial, that our disposition changes the 

penalty landscape from 25 years and 6 months confinement to 20 years and 6 months 

confinement. However, the nature of the remaining offenses captures the gravamen 

of appellant’s crimes—multiple instances of aggravated assault and assault 

consummated by a battery upon his wife and infant child, including strangling his 

wife into unconsciousness and nearly cutting off his child’s tongue with a sharp 

object. The admitted aggravation evidence remains relevant. The sentence is 

AFFIRMED. All rights, privileges, and property, of which appellant has been 

deprived by virtue of that portion of the findings set aside by our decision, are 

ordered restored. 
HOOK — ARMY 20121115 

3

Senior Judge HAIGHT and Judge CAMPANELLA concur. 

FOR THE COURT: 

JOHN P. TAITT 

Deputy Clerk of Court 

JOHN P. TAITT 

Deputy Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT: