Assault

United States v. Zabawa, 719 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2013)

The defendant was charged with assaulting a federal corrections officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. That offense requires proof that the defendant “inflicted” an injury to the officer. In this case, the defendant assaulted the officer and the officer then “head-butted” the defendant which caused the officer’s injury over his eye. While the defendant’s conduct may have caused the injury to the officer, he did not inflict the injury. Conviction reversed.

United States v. Acosta-Sierra, 690 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2012)

The defendant threw a rock at a Border Patrol agent. The agent did not see the rock as it was thrown and was not aware of the defendant having thrown the rock until after it hit a gate near where the agent was walking. When the agent turned around and saw the defendant, he was not holding anything in his hand and the agent was not then fearful of an assault from the defendant. When the defendant was arrested, he hit one of the agents on the side of the head. The rock throwing incident could not be prosecuted under the “reasonable apprehension of harm” prong of assault, because the agent was not aware of the rock throwing until it was over. The offense could have been prosecuted under the attempted battery prong of the assault statute, however.

United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012)

Canvassing the law relating to the definition of assault, 18 U.S.C. § 111, the Second Circuit held that the defendant must have engaged in conduct, not involving touching, “committed by either a willful attempt to inflict injury upon the person of another, or by a threat to inflict injury upon the person of another which, when coupled with an apparent present ability causes a reasonable apprehendion of immediate boidly harm.” The evidence was not sufficient in this case. The defendant basically resisted arrest by making it difficult to handcuff him.

United States v. Hertular, 562 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2009)

The evidence was insufficient to support an assault/threat conviction of the defendant. Though the defendant did make a threat to the agents, the requirement that the threat represent an “imminent” threat of harm was not established.

United States v. Chapman, 528 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2008)

18 U.S.C. § 111(a) makes it a crime to forcibly resist, oppose, impede and interfere with a federal officer engaged in official duties. The Ninth Circuit holds that the conduct must at least amount to an assault, in order to sustain a defendant’s conviction. Merely “tensing up” when an officer attempts to escort the defendant to a location is not enough to sustain a conviction.

United States v. Temple, 447 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2006)

Assaulting a federal officer is outlawed by 18 U.S.C. § 111. Though an actual touching is not required, if the offense is limited to a threat of physical injury, the threat must be such as to represent an imminent threat of violence. Leaving a voice message on someone’s phone does not amount to an assault under § 111.