United States v. Cassano, ACM 39115

Appellant, tried by a military judge at a general court-martial, was convicted of sexual assault (Article 120, UCMJ) and assault consummated by a battery (Article 128, UCMJ) based on a November 2014 incident with A1C JE; sentence approved: dishonorable discharge, 4 years confinement, reduction to E-1.
Appellant and A1C JE had an on–again/off–again eight‑month dating history that ended months before the incident; A1C JE had ended the relationship.
On the day of the incident, Appellant behaved erratically, threatened suicide, retrieved a firearm case, and later pinned A1C JE and forcibly kissed her (basis for battery conviction).
Later that night in Appellant’s bedroom, despite A1C JE’s verbal resistance and pleas for him to stop, Appellant forcibly removed clothing and engaged in penile and digital penetration; A1C JE acquiesced to ejaculation to end the assault.
A1C JE reported the assault within days, submitted to a forensic exam, and testified at trial; the military judge found her credible.
After trial, the Defense produced an affidavit alleging a January 2014 statement by A1C JE that she would “ruin his life” if he left her; the military judge and convening authority denied a post‑trial Article 39(a) session/new‑trial request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal and factual sufficiency of sexual‑assault conviction	Prosecution: evidence shows lack of consent and meets burden beyond a reasonable doubt	Appellant: A1C JE consented and/or Appellant honestly and reasonably believed she consented	Court (de novo review): evidence both legally and factually sufficient; conviction affirmed
Denial of post‑trial Article 39(a) session / newly discovered evidence	Defense: affidavit (statement from Jan 2014) is newly discovered and could justify a new trial	Prosecution/resp.: Appellant knew or could have discovered the evidence before trial; statement would not produce substantially more favorable result	Abuse‑of‑discretion review: denial affirmed — affidavit not newly discovered for purposes of relief and would not likely change outcome

Swift, 76 M.J. 210 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (Article 66(c) plenary review requirement explained)
Rosario, 76 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (legal and factual sufficiency standards on appeal)
Gutierrez, 73 M.J. 172 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (legal sufficiency test stated)
Wheeler, 76 M.J. 564 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2017) (reasonable‑doubt/conflict evidence discussion)
Barner, 56 M.J. 131 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (drawing inferences for legal sufficiency)
Dykes, 38 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1993) (factual‑sufficiency review limited to trial record)
Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (appellate court’s fresh, impartial look for factual sufficiency)
Williams, 37 M.J. 352 (C.M.A. 1993) (standard for new‑trial/post‑trial relief and required showings)
Meghdadi, 60 M.J. 438 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for denial of post‑trial 39(a) session)
Oliver, 70 M.J. 64 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (factual sufficiency test articulation)
Galchick, 52 M.J. 815 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2000) (reasonable doubt does not require absence of conflict)
Lips, 22 M.J. 679 (A.F.C.M.R. 1986) (evidence conflict does not preclude conviction)
Jenkins, 60 M.J. 27 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (Article 66 substantial‑right context)