United States v. Sergeant First Class QUANTRELL L. ANDERSON
ARMY 20170158
| A.C.C.A. | Feb 21, 2019Background
- Appellant, a Sergeant First Class and facility chief at an Army ATC tower, exchanged hundreds of texts with junior enlisted soldiers, including sexually explicit and harassing messages.
- SPC BK (an ATC trainee, junior enlisted) received repeated sexual texts and proposals (e.g., "strip training", requests for explicit photos); some messages invoked appellant’s supervisory authority.
- On 1 Jan 2016 appellant visited SPC BK’s barracks room; while sitting between SPC BK and PFC PC, he placed his hand into PFC PC’s pants and touched her vulva.
- SPC SL reported a separate incident in which appellant sent an explicit message; this prompted reports from SPC BK and PFC PC.
- A general court-martial convicted appellant of three specifications of maltreatment (Article 93) and one of abusive sexual contact (Article 120); sentence was approved and appellant appealed under Article 66.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent by SPC BK defeats maltreatment conviction | Gov: consent may be relevant but cannot transform objectively unwarranted conduct into lawful conduct when authority is exploited | Anderson: SPC BK actively participated; her consent negates maltreatment | Court: Consent is relevant but not dispositive; here rank leverage and objectively unjustified conduct make maltreatment proven beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether appellant’s reasonable mistake of fact as to consent is a defense | Gov: mistake is immaterial because the maltreatment element is objective | Anderson: he reasonably believed BK consented | Court: Mistake of fact is not a defense where the element is objective; claim fails |
| Whether PFC PC was "subject to appellant’s orders" for Article 93 | Gov: appellant knew she was a junior soldier in same battalion and thus subject to some duty to obey NCOs | Anderson: no evidence appellant knew PFC PC was subordinate or that she had duty to obey him | Court: On these facts PFC PC was subject to appellant’s orders and appellant knew it—maltreatment conviction stands |
| Whether consensual sexual relations between senior NCO and junior enlisted always constitute maltreatment | Gov: consent can negate maltreatment in limited circumstances | Anderson: cited Fuller to argue consensual relations are lawful | Court: Consensual relations do not always equal maltreatment (Fuller) but here supervisory leverage and demeaning communications distinguish the case; maltreatment proven |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F.) (standard for legal and factual sufficiency review)
- United States v. Humpherys, 57 M.J. 83 (C.A.A.F.) (legal sufficiency test—view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A.) (factual sufficiency test—court must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt after weighing evidence)
- United States v. Caldwell, 75 M.J. 276 (C.A.A.F.) (elements of maltreatment and objective standard for conduct)
- United States v. Fuller, 54 M.J. 107 (C.A.A.F.) (consensual relations between NCO and junior enlisted do not automatically establish maltreatment)
- United States v. Miller, 67 M.J. 385 (C.A.A.F.) (overruled Fuller on other grounds but cited for context)