Court Opinion

ID: 9931313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:02:59.885074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:07.164498
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before
PENLAND, HAYES, and MORRIS
Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Captain ROSS E. DOWNUM
United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20220575

Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division
Steven C. Henricks and Scott Z. Hughes, Military Judges
Lieutenant Colonel Shari F. Shugart, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Daniel Conway, Esquire; Captain Matthew S. Fields, JA (on brief
and reply brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Christopher B. Burgess, JA; Major Chase C. Cleveland, JA;
Captain Anthony J. Scarpati, JA (on brief).

6 February 2024

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent,

PENLAND, Senior Judge:

This is the proverbial “paper” urinalysis case, but without the paper. Where
the evidence is legally and factually insufficient, we grant relief. A panel of officers
sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant of one specification of
unlawfully using cocaine, in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military
Justice [UCMJ], 10 U.S.C. § 912a. The military judge sentenced him to a
reprimand, to forfeit $1000 pay per month for one month, and 30 days restriction.

We review the case under Article 66, UCMJ. Appellant raises multiple
assignments of error. One of them, essentially the same as one of appellant’s
DOWNUM — ARMY 20220575

personally raised matters under United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431
(C.M.A. 1982), merits discussion and relief.!

We review legal sufficiency de novo. United States v. Brown, M.J._, 2024
CCA LEXIS 18 (C.A.A.F. 10 January 2024) (citing United States v. Wilson, 76 M.J.
4, 6 (C.A.A.F. 2017; United States v. Oliver, 70 M.J. 64, 68 (C.A.A.F. 2011). We
review factual sufficiency de novo. United States v. Scott, M.J._(Army Ct. Crim.
App. 27 Oct. 2023). United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394, 399 (C.A.A.F. 2002.
Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 amended
Article 66(d)(1)(B) regarding our factual sufficiency review as follows:

(B) FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW

(i) In an appeal of a finding of guilty under subsection (b), the
Court of Criminal Appeals may consider whether the finding is
correct in fact upon request of the accused if the accused makes
a specific showing of a deficiency in proof.

(ii) After an accused has made such a showing, the Court may
weigh the evidence and determine controverted questions of fact
subject to —

(1) appropriate deference to the fact that the trial court saw and
heard the witnesses and other evidence; and

(2) appropriate deference to findings of fact entered into the
record by the military judge.

(iii) If, as a result of the review conducted under clause (ii), the
court is clearly convinced that the finding of guilty was against
the weight of the evidence the Court may dismiss, set aside, or

modify the finding, or affirm a lesser finding.

' Appellant’s remaining assigned errors and personally raised matters are moot.
Regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we note that his attorneys’
performance was not deficient.

Considering our disposition of the case, we also need not resolve the claim of
unreasonable post-trial delay. However, we are gravely concerned about the
excessive time (174 days) it took the government to submit this fundamentally
flawed result for appellate review (especially where Article 60a, UCMJ, has
eliminated the convening authority’s power to correct such an injustice in the field
by disapproving the finding of guilty for this offense).
DOWNUM — ARMY 20220575

Pub. L. No. 116-283, § 542(b), 134 Stat. 3611 — 12. The amendment to Article
66(d)(1)(B) applies only to courts-martial where every finding of guilty in the Entry
of Judgment is for an offense that occurred on or after 1 January 2021. Z7d. at 3612.

The government called four witnesses, all related to a urinalysis, and
rested. The government may use a positive urine test as part of its effort to
prove illegal drug use, but our superior court has established predictable
conditions. The metabolite in question must not occur naturally in the human
body; the test must be scientifically reliable; and the test must reliably
account for the possibility of innocent ingestion (this is usually addressed
with testimony about the significance of the “cutoff” level). United States v.
Campbell, 50 M.J. 154, 160 (C.A.A.F. 1999). (citing United States v. Harper,
22 M.J. 157, 163 (C.M.A. 1986). (See also United States v. Green, 55 M.J.
76, 79-81 (C.A.A.F. 2001). Subject to these substantive requirements, a
positive urinalysis allows a factfinder to infer a person has knowingly used
the substance in question. Harper, 22 M.J. at 163. (See Also, Military
Judges’ Benchbook panel instruction for Article 112a: “[Y]ou may infer from
the presence of [cocaine] in the accused’s urine that the accused knew [he]
used [cocaine].” Dep’t of Army, PAM 27-9, Legal Services: Military Judges’
Benchbook, para. 3a-36a-2 (5 February 2024) [Benchbook]).

In appellant’s trial, the government asked its expert, “[W]hat is GC-
MS?” The expert answered, “Gas chromatography mass spectrometry....[i]t is
the confirmation, the one that looks for the fingerprint of the drug.” Beyond
this metaphor the expert offered virtually no information about the test itself,
whether it is regarded as scientifically sound, and whether it was conducted in
accordance with prescribed procedures in this case.” The expert did testify
the metabolite from the sample exceeded the cutoff level and did not occur
naturally in the body, but there was no explanation of the cutoff level’s
relevance, or any other evidence indicating test controls for the possibility of
innocent ingestion.? 4

? On the other hand, the chain of custody evidence was very detailed.
> In our experience as practitioners, the cutoff level is used to control for the
possibility of innocent ingestion. But our experience is no substitute for expert

testimony - this is still something for the government to prove.

4 The expert’s description of the preliminary screening test was equally lacking.
DOWNUM — ARMY 20220575

The government’s case also omitted the test results themselves.°
Instead, the prosecution asked only for the expert’s “opinion based off of your
review of the results.” The expert responded, “It was positive for BZE at 295
nanograms per milliliter.”

We are unfamiliar with any authority supporting the government’s contention
that an expert opinion alone is sufficient to prove wrongful drug use. Our superior
court has held expert testimony is required to explain the urinalysis results.
Campbell, 50 M.J. at 159 (citing United States v. Graham, 50 M.J. 56, 58-59
(C.A.A.F. 1999). We interpret this to require two things: test results and expert
testimony. This case failed to include the former but included the latter. We
recognize “[i]f the Government relies upon test results, it is not precluded from
using evidence other than the three-part standard if such evidence can explain, with
equivalent persuasiveness, the underlying scientific methodology and the
significance of the test results, so as to provide a rational basis for inferring
knowing, wrongful use.” United States v. Campbell, 52 M.J. 386, 388-389
(C.A.A.F. 2000). In appellant’s case, the prosecution did not follow the three-part
standard or an equally persuasive method. Without the admission of the test results,
commonly accomplished by offering them as non-testimonial business records under
Mil. Rule Evid. 803(6),° the expert’s testimony lacked any relevance. There were no
facts in evidence for her to explain and no test results for her to interpret.

For these reasons, and after reviewing all the evidence, we conclude the
finding of guilty was legally and factually insufficient.’

The finding of guilty and the sentence are SET ASIDE. The charge and its
specification are DISMISSED with prejudice.

> Government counsel did not offer Prosecution Exhibit 8 for identification, which
was the positive test. Apparently, this was not an oversight, as the trial counsel had
previously informed the court that he would not be offering that exhibit on page 302
of the Record of Trial.

6 But see United States v. McGee, ARMY20190844, 2022 CCA LEXIS 160, at *9
(Army Ct. Crim. App. 17 March 2022) (Mem. op.), distinguishing between
laboratory results, which are not testimonial hearsay, and accompanying analysts’
certifications, which are.

7 The defense case did not include enough information to (unwittingly) make the
case legally and factually sufficient. We have considered United States v. Pleasant,
71 M.J. 709 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2012) (an appellant’s testimony can be
sufficiently incredible to incriminate him).
DOWNUM — ARMY 20220575

Judge HAYES and Judge MORRIS concur.

FOR THE COURT:

JAMES W. HERRING, JR.
Clerk of Court