## Facts

- Ruel Hawkins, a 54-year-old man, was exercising with his 18-year-old niece on a U.S. Army base.
- During the outing, Hawkins began performing oral sex on his niece.
- The niece reacted by jumping up and running away.
- She flagged down a passing driver and reported that her uncle had molested her.
- The government charged Hawkins under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b) for abusive sexual contact on federal property, based on knowingly engaging in sexual contact without the other person’s permission.
- The case was tried to the court (bench trial).
- Hawkins testified that his niece consented to the sexual contact.
- The district court found Hawkins guilty, crediting the niece’s account over Hawkins’s testimony.
- After trial, Hawkins filed a motion arguing § 2244(b) required the government to prove he knowingly lacked his niece’s consent (not merely that he knowingly engaged in sexual contact that, in fact, was nonconsensual).
- The district court denied the motion without deciding whether the statute includes that additional mens rea element, reasoning that the evidence would support a finding that Hawkins knew he did not have consent even if such proof were required.
- Hawkins appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b) requires the government to prove that the defendant knew the victim did not consent to the sexual contact.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold Hawkins’s conviction, including (assuming the statute requires it) that Hawkins knew he lacked his niece’s consent.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed Hawkins’s conviction in an unpublished per curiam disposition.
- The court did not need to definitively decide whether § 2244(b) contains a separate “knowledge of nonconsent” requirement.
- Assuming for purposes of the appeal that the statute required proof Hawkins knew he lacked consent, the court held the record allowed the trial judge to find that element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court may affirm a conviction by assuming (without deciding) a defendant’s reading of a statute when the evidence satisfies that assumed, more demanding standard.
- On a sufficiency challenge, the reviewing court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and defers to the factfinder’s credibility choices, especially after a bench trial.
- Knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the surrounding circumstances and the complainant’s immediate conduct and prompt report after the sexual contact.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Hawkins’s § 2244(b) conviction because, even if the statute required proof that he knew his niece did not consent, the trial evidence—credited by the district court—supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual contact was without consent and that Hawkins was aware he lacked permission.


United States v. Hawkins, 603 F. App’x 239 (2015)