Court Opinion

ID: 9907755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 21:01:41.258323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:12.501237
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before
PENLAND, HAYES, and POND
Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee
v.
Sergeant First Class HUNTER D. KNIGHT
United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20220576

Headquarters, U.S. Army Military District of Washington
Adam S. Kazin, Military Judge
Lieutenant Colonel Peter G. Juetten, Acting Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Captain Sarah H. Bailey, JA; Major Mitchell Herniak, JA.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Jacqueline DeGaine, JA.

30 November 2023

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

PENLAND, Senior Judge:

Appellant was convicted at a general court-martial, contrary to his pleas, by a
panel of officers and enlisted soldiers, of one specification of domestic violence in
violation of Article 128b, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 928b
[UCMJ]. The military judge sentenced appellant to 60 days of confinement and
reduction to the grade of E4.

Appellant personally submitted two matters for our consideration under
United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). The first warrants brief
discussion and partial relief; the second warrants neither.
KNIGHT — ARMY 20220576
DISCUSSION

This court reviews questions of factual sufficiency de novo. United States v.
Washington, 57 M.J. 394, 399 (C.A.A.F. 2002). The test for factual sufficiency is
whether, after weighing the evidence in the record of trial and making allowances
for not having personally observed the witnesses, the members of the court of
[criminal appeals] are themselves convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. /d at 403 (citing United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324, 325
(C.M.A. 1987)). In reviewing factual sufficiency, we are limited to the facts
introduced at trial. United States v. Beatty, 64 M.J. 456 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (citing
United States v. Duffy, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 20, 23, 11 C.M.R. 20, 23 (1953)).!

The panel found appellant guilty of the following specification:

In that [appellant], U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Lee, Virginia, on or about
1 July 2020, commit a violent offense against [MM], the spouse of the
accused, to wit: unlawfully kicking [MM] with his feet on her leg and body
and grabbing and pinching her with his hands on her abdomen and thighs.
(emphasis added).

Appellant insists the finding of guilty is not factually sufficient. To a very
limited point, we agree, for the evidence sufficiently established a slightly more
contained scenario of violent behavior. Testimonial and other evidence proved
beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant used his foot to kick” his spouse and used
his hand to pinch her abdomen. .

' We recognize that Article 66(d)(1)(B) was amended by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021; but as the amendment applies only to
courts-martial in which every finding of guilty in the Entry of Judgment is for an
offense that occurred on or after 1 January 2021, the amended language is not
applicable to appellant’s case. See Pub. L. No. 116-283, § 542(b), 134 Stat. 3612.

? Appellant urges us to contrast the charged word, “kicking,” with the repeated
description of his “stomping” his spouse’s leg. We decline for two reasons. First,
his spouse also indicated he “kick[ed]” her. Second, under the circumstances of this
case, the two words are synonymous.
KNIGHT — ARMY 20220576
CONCLUSION

On consideration of the entire record, we affirm only so much of the finding
of guilty to Specification 5 of Charge I as provides: 345

In that [appellant], U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Lee, Virginia, on or about
1 July 2020, commit a violent offense against [J], the spouse of the

accused, to wit: unlawfully kicking (I) with his foot on her leg and body
and pinching her with his hand on her abdomen.

The sentence is AFFIRMED.

Judge HAYES and Judge POND concur.

STEVEN P. HAIGHT
Acting Clerk of Court

> Based on this disposition, we perceive no need to reassess the sentence, for the
nature and character of appellant’s offense remain unchanged. Assuming arguendo
that such reassessment is necessary, we would reassess and affirm the adjudged
sentence under United States v. Winckelmann, 73 M.J. 11 (C.A.A.F. 2013).

* The FINDING/DISPOSITION block of The Statement of Trial Results, as
incorporated into the judgment of the Court, for Specification 3 of Charge I and The
Specification of Charge III, are amended to read “Military Judge entered finding of
not guilty.”

> Block 32 of The Statement of Trial Results, as incorporated into the Judgment of
the Court, is amended to reflect a response of “no.”