U.S. v. Rivera, 54 M.J. 489

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 128 - Assault Pre-2019 offenses

1. testing for legal sufficiency of the evidence, and in the context of this case, the members could have properly rejected the parental discipline defense and concluded that one closed-fist punch to the stomach can cause substantial risk of serious bodily injury; the burden of establishing substantial risk can be met without manifestation of actual harm
2. evidence of assault consummated by a battery upon a child was legally sufficient and overcame defense of parental discipline where the members could have properly found that the force used was unreasonable because: (1) the child was struck with a closed-fist in the stomach; (2) there was legally sufficient evidence to conclude that the child 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 (3) 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

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Affirmative Defenses

1. because appellant put into issue the parental-discipline defense, the Government had the additional burden of refuting appellant’s defense of parental discipline beyond a reasonable doubt
2. the parental discipline defense as set forth in Section 3.08(1), Model Penal Code (ALI 1985), and as applied by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, states that force may be applied 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
3. in reviewing a claim of parental discipline, there is 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; this test does not rest on specialized medical knowledge, but rather on the everyday common sense and knowledge of human nature and the ways of the world expected of triers of fact
4. testing for legal sufficiency of the evidence, and in the context of this case, the members could have properly rejected the parental discipline defense and concluded that one closed-fist punch to the stomach can cause substantial risk of serious bodily injury; the burden of establishing substantial risk can be met without manifestation of actual harm
5. evidence of assault consummated by a battery upon a child was legally sufficient and overcame defense of parental discipline where the members could have properly found that the force used was unreasonable because: (1) the child was struck with a closed-fist in the stomach; (2) there was legally sufficient evidence to conclude that the child 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 (3) 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

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Trial Burdens, Standards › Affirmative defenses

1. because appellant put into issue the parental-discipline defense, the Government had the additional burden of refuting appellant’s defense of parental discipline beyond a reasonable doubt

Trial Stages: Merits: Instructions › Affirmative defenses

1. because appellant put into issue the parental-discipline defense, the Government had the additional burden of refuting appellant’s defense of parental discipline beyond a reasonable doubt

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. 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