United States v. Master Sergeant KELVIN R. CURRY

CURRY - ARMY 20240073 gas, and she was not provided with feminine products while menstruating. In addition, the victim testified that having to live in these conditions made her feel "like nothing." Giving due deference to the panel's implicit credibility determination that the government's witnesses were more credible than the defense witnesses, and based on our own review of the record, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant's culpable negligence endangered the victim and therefore affirm the findings as factually sufficient.3

B. The Applicability of the Parental Discipline Defense in a Child Endangerment Case

1. Parental Discipline

Although not directly raised by the parties, we requested supplemental briefing on the issue of whether it was appropriate for the military judge to instruct the jury on the parental discipline defense in a child endangerment case that did not involve the actual use of force. As we recently explained in United States v. Brass.field, our superior court has long recognized the parental discipline defense in the context of a general intent assault charge involving the use of force. 85 M.J. 523, 525-26 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2024). For example, in United States v. Brown, the Court of Military Appeals [CMA] cited the Model Penal Code for the proposition that the use of force by parents or guardians is justifiable if: (a) the force is used to safeguard or promote 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. 26 M.J. 148, 150 (C.M.A. 1988). See also United States v. Robertson, 36 M.J. 190, 192 (C.M.A. 1992) (holding that "[t]he second prong of the [parental discipline] test is one of reasonable force."); United States v. Rivera, 54 M.J. 489, 491 (C.A.A.F. 2001)