Harold B. Hammock Jr Sergeant E-5 U.S. Marine Corps Convicted Sex Offender Rape Sodomy Assault Battery Of A Child

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Children > Harold B. Hammock Jr

Name: Harold B. Hammock Jr

U.S. V. Hammock NMCCA 200700938

Date Appeal Denied: March 23, 2010

Plea: Not Guilty

Charges: Rape, Sodomy, assault and battery on a child

Military Branch: U.S. Marine Corps

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry?

A general court-martial composed of officer members convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of unauthorized

absence, eight specifications of rape of a child under age 16, one specification of rape of a 16-year-old, three specifications of sodomy with a child, five specifications of assault and battery on a child, one specification of aggravated assault with a force likely to cause death of grievous bodily harm to a child, and an indecent act with a child, in violation of Articles 86 120, 125, 128, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 886, 920, 925, 928, and 934. The approved sentence was confinement for life without the possibility of parole, reduction to pay grade E-1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge.

This case is before us for the third time. We have twice set aside the convening authority’s action and returned the

record for proper post-trial review. Said review has now been accomplished. The appellant’s sole remaining assignment of error asserts that the approved sentence is disproportionate to his crimes and should be reduced.1 After examining the record of trial and the pleadings of the parties, we conclude that the findings and the sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant remains.

The crimes of which the appellant was convicted are exceptionally heinous. From 2002 to 2005, the appellant, a

sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps, engaged in a secret, escalating pattern of abuse, both physical and sexual, against

his three minor step-children. His sexual abuse of MR, his oldest step-daughter, began when she was 10 years old. Record at 524-25. At first, the appellant groomed MR by having her view sexually oriented comic books with him. Id. at 525. Then he progressed to inappropriate touching, sodomy, and, eventually, daily and twice-daily rapes of MR. Id. at 526-31. During this time, he perpetuated increasingly violent assaults against MR, her younger brother, JR, and her younger sister, CR. These included choking JR until he passed out, kicking CR in the abdomen and giving MR a bloody nose. Id. at 527, 531, 552-53, 662-65, 681-84, 743. The appellant sometimes forced his stepchildren to aid him in the commission of his offenses against their siblings, forcing the children to kick each other and often utilizing the younger children as lookouts for their mother while he raped the older daughter. Id. at 674-77, 690-91, 747. Throughout this four-year period, he kept the children in a constant state of terror to the extent that they felt they could not tell their mother or other relatives about his actions

Arriving at RS’s house in uniform and with his step-daughter, who had been instructed to play along, he told RS’s mother that his step-daughter was a school-friend of RS and that he and his wife wanted to invite the girl to a sleep-over with his daughter and a trip to Sea World. Id. at 264-65, 326-27, 570-73. After winning the mother’s trust, he instead took the 16-year-old girl, a virgin, to a liquor store and a motel room, where she passed out from the effects of the drink he had given her. Id. at 266-68. While she was unconscious, he raped her until she bled so profusely that he told her, “You bled so much I thought you died.”

We have considered the record of trial, the pleadings of the parties, and the appellant’s military record and family history. We considered that he may have, at least on one occasion, been physically abused by his own father. We have also considered the nature and duration of the appellant’s offenses. The appellant’s physical and sexual abuse of his step-children spanned a fouryear period. His other victim was a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet. The circumstances surrounding the appellant’s actions reflected sophisticated efforts on his part to trick the mothers and relatives of these children into believing that the appellant was properly caring for the children. Record at 326-

31, 533, 549, 665, 662, 669, 690-91, 697, 745-47. Far from giving proper care, the appellant systematically terrorized and degraded the children. Id. at 576-77, 685, 697, 745. All the child victims and many of their family members continue to suffer psychological and other negative effects from the appellant’s acts.