FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14849 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 71 -C R -D H B -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O B E R T O A L E J A N D R O F R A N C I S C O - G U T I E R R E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 21, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A f te ra ju r y tr ia l, R o b e r to A le ja n d r o F r a n c is c o - G u tie r r e z ap p e a ls h is c onvi c t i ons f

orone c ountof

a s s a ul t , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 113( a ) ( 6) , a nd2

thr e e c ount s of

c rue l ty t o a c hi l d, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 7 a nd 13, a nd O . C. G . A . § 1 6 - 5 - 7 0 ( a ) a n d ( b ) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D B ec ause G ut i erre z c hal l enges the suff i ci ency of the evi dence, w e f i rs tre vi ew th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l. A . E ve n t s of

F e b r u ar y 8 an d 9, 2005 G u tie r r e z is m a r r ie d to T if f a n y H in e s , a s o ld ie rin th e U n ite d S ta te s A r m y . In F ebruary20 05 , G ut i erre z, H i nes a nd thei r s even-m on th o l d d augh t er , C . G . , l i ved in m ilita r y h o u s in g o n F o r t G o r d o n , a m ilita r y b a s e n e a rA u g u s ta , G e o r g ia . G ut i e r r e z w a t c he d C . G . dur i ng the da y w hi l e hi s w i f e w a s a tw or k. O n F ebruary8, 20 05 , H i nes c am e hom e f rom w ork atl un cht i m e a nd no t i ce d thatC . G . w as qu i etand n otas ac t i ve as she norm al l y w as . C . G . al so cr i ed w hen H in e s p ic k e d h e ru p . G u tie r r e z to ld H in e s th a t C .G . “w a s ju s t s o r e .” T he ne xtm or ni ng H i ne s not i c e d tha tC . G . ’ s a r m w a s s w ol l e n a nd ha d a d is a g r e e m e n t w ith G u tie r r e z o v e rw h e th e rth e y s h o u ld ta k e C .G . to th e h o s p ita l. G ut i erre z c on vi nced H i nes t o w ai tt o see i f the sw el l i ng w ou l d sub si de. D u r in g th e d a y , G u tie r r e z a s k e d a n e ig h b o r , L e e A n n a S a y e r s , if s h e w o u ld b a b y s it C .G . f

o ra n h o u rw h ile h e h e lp e d a n o th e rn e ig h b o rm o v e . S a y e r s a g r e e d . B ef ore G ut i erre z l ef

t , he t ol d S ay er s thatC . G . ’ s a rm w as i nj ured as a r es ul tof aTwo other ne ighbor s, who had watched C.G. for Gutierre z on occasion, also testified at 1 trial. The sene ighb or s st ate d th at when Guti e rre z wo uld drop C.G . o ff

, h ewo uld

of ten f ail t o provide a ny supplies such as a bottle or diaper s. In addition, C.G. and her c lothes werevery dirty and smelled of sour

milk. One neighbor desc ribed Gutier rez providinga bottle that had mold growingin the formula. 3 bu g b i t e a nd thathe had al re ady t aken C . G . t o a do ct or. G ut i erre z a dv i se d S ay er s t o l e a ve C . G . i n he rc a rs e a ta nd tr y nott o t ouc h the a r m be c a us e i tw a s i r r i t a t e d. A ft erG ut i erre z l ef

t , S ay er s not i ce d t hatthe bo tt l e G ut i erre z had prov i ded w as di rty a nd thatthe form ul a i nsi de i tw as “ chun ky” a tthe bo tt om as i f i thad be e n r e f i l l e d w i thoutf

i r s tbe i ng c l e a ne d. S a y e r s e m pt i e d the bott l e , c l e a ne d i ta nd f i l l e d i tw i th f

r e s h f or m ul a . I n a ddi t i on, C . G . ’ s c a rs e a ta nd bl a nke tw e r e di r ty a nd sm el l ed l i ke ol d form ul a a nd “ spi tup . ” W hen S ay er s t oo k C . G . ou tof the ca r 1 se at , S ay er s not i ce d t hatC . G . ’ s a rm w as sw ol l en t o m ore than t w i ce the si ze of her ot her a rm . C . G . beca m e very upsetw hen S ay er s t ou ched her el bo w . G ut i erre z re turned for C . G . approx i m at el y f ou r hou rs l at er . T hateveni ng , G ut i erre z a nd H i nes broug htC . G . t o t he em er gency r oo m at E i se nh ow erA rm y M edi ca l C ent eratF ortG ordo n. D r. Ivey S hu m an di agno se d C . G . w i th a fr ac ture i n h erri gh tarm abov e the el bo w and ref erre d h ert o an ortho pedi st . G ut i erre z e xp l ai ned t o D r. S hu m an thathe had p l ac ed C . G . i n a ca r s e a t o n a c o u c h a n d C .G . h a d f a lle n o v e r . G u tie r r e z a ls o o f f e r e d th is e x p la n a tio n to h i s w i fe fo r th e fi rstt i m e. D r. S h u m an w as co n cern ed ab o u tC . G . ’ s i n j u ry b ecau se4

i tw a s notc ons i s t e ntw i th a f a l l a nd s us pe c t e d tha tthe i nj ur y m a y ha ve be e n the re sul tof abuse. O nc e C . G . w a s a dm i tt e d t o the hos pi t a l , s he w a s e xa m i ne d by D r . J a s on L anham , the chi ef

re si dentfor i np at i entse rvi ce s. G ut i erre z t ol d D r. L anham that he ha d pl a c e d C . G . unr e s tr a i ne d i n a c a rs e a ton a s of a a boutthr e e f

e e tof f the gr ound. G ut i e r r e z s a i d tha the l e f tthe r oom f

ora m om e nt , he a r d C . G . c r y i ng a nd re turned t o fi nd C . G . on the grou nd . W hen D r. L anham ob t ai ned C . G . ’ s hi st ory f r o m h e rp a r e n ts , th e y in d ic a te d th a t th e r e h a d b e e n n o p a s t in ju r ie s o rilln e s s e s . H ow ever , af

t erre vi ew i ng x-ra ys , D r. L anham di sc ov er ed a brea k i n C . G . ’ s l ef t c l a vi c l e tha tw a s he a l i ng, w hi c h m e a nttha ti tdi d notoc c ura tthe s a m e t i m e a s the br e a k i n C . G . ’ s r i ghte l bow . G ut i e r r e z t ol d D r . L a nha m tha t , on a nothe roc c a s i on three w ee ks ea rl i er , C . G . “ w as i n a ca r s ea tun re stra i ned o n t he sofaand h ad fa l l en ou tof the ca r s ea ton t o t he fl oo r. ” D r. L anham op i ned t hatC . G . ’ s i nj uri es w er e the r e s ul tof

a bus e r a the rtha n a n a c c i de nt a l f a l l gi ve n the ty pe a nd l oc a t i ons of the fr ac tures and C . G . ’ s y ou ng age. D r. T ho m as G i bson , the chi ef of pedi atri c ortho pedi c s urgery , perf orm ed s ur ge r y t o r e pa i rC . G . ’ s br oke n bone i n he rr i ghta r m . A c c or di ng t o D r . G i bs on, the thr e e f

r a c tur e s m os thi ghl y s ugge s t i ve of c hi l d a bus e a r e f

r a c tur e s t o the hu m erus, cl avi cl e a nd ri bs, al l of w hi ch C . G . sust ai ned. D r. G i bson op i ned t hat5

C . G . ’ s i nj ur i e s w e r e the r e s ul tof a bus e be c a us e the y w oul d notbe c a us e d by the fa l l desc ri bed b y G ut i erre z. D r . C l a r e nc e J oe , a r a di ol ogi s t , r e vi e w e d C . G . ’ s x- r a y s . D r . J oe not e d a h e a lin g c la v ic le f

r a c tu r e , tw o r ib f

r a c tu r e s a n d tw o f

r a c tu r e s in C .G .’s r ig h t a r m . O ne of C . G . ’ s a r m f

r a c tur e s , a n obl i que f

r a c tur e of

the pr oxi m a l hum e rus , w a s the r e s ul tof a tw i s t i ng m ot i on. T he othe ra r m f r a c tur e w a s a hor i z ont a l f r a c tur e of

the di st al hu m erus, w hi ch w as caused by a di re ctbl ow . T he ri b fra ctures w er e m ore l i ke l y c a us e d by pr e s s i ng a f i nge ri nt o the r i b r a the rtha n f r om a f a l l . B a s e d on C . G . ’ s ha vi ng s uf

f e r e d m ul t i pl e f

r a c tur e s tha tw e r e i n di f f e r e nts t a ge s of

he a l i ng, D r. Joe opi ned t hatthe i nj uri es w er e a n i nd i ca t i on of chi l d abu se . B . I n t e r vi e w s on F e b r u ar y 10 & 11, 2005 O n the e ve ni ng of

F e brua r y 10, S e r ge a ntV a ne s s a K a hn of the F or tG or don M i l i t a r y P ol i c e ( “ M P ” ) r e c e i ve d a c a l l f r om e m e r ge nc y r oom phy s i c i a ns r e por t i ng pos s i bl e c hi l d a bus e . S e r ge a ntK a hn m e tG ut i e r r e z a nd H i ne s a tthe hos pi t a l a nd th e n d ir e c te d G u tie r r e z to m e e t h e ra t th e m ilita r y p o lic e in v e s tig a to r ’s o f f ic e . A t 1 :3 0 a .m . th a t s a m e e v e n in g , S e r g e a n t K a h n a d v is e d G u tie r r e z o f h is M ir a n d a r ig h ts , in te r v ie w e d G u tie r r e z a n d th e n to o k h is w r itte n s ta te m e n t. I n h is st at em ent , G ut i erre z a verr ed thaton F ebruary8, he had p l ac ed C . G . i n h erca r s ea t butf or gott o pl a c e the s a f

e ty r e s tr a i nta r ound he r . G ut i e r r e z pl a c e d the c a rs e a ton6

the c ouc h a nd the n r a n t o the ki t c he n t o tur n of f the s t ove . G ut i e r r e z he a r d a c r a s h, a nd C . G . be ga n t o c r y . G ut i e r r e z r a n t o the l i vi ng r oom a nd f ound C . G . l a y i ng on the f l oorw i th he rc a rs e a ton t op of he r . W he n G ut i e r r e z pi c ke d C . G . up, s he s t oppe d c r y i ng a nd w e ntt o s l e e p. T he fol l ow i ng af

t erno on , G ut i erre z w as i nt ervi ew ed by A gentB ri an W i l hel m , an i nv es t i gat or w i th t he C ri m i nal Invest i gat i on D i vi si on (“ C ID ”) atF ort G ordo n. A ft erA gentW i l hel m advi se d G ut i erre z of hi s M i ra nd a r i gh t s, G ut i erre z s a i d tha tC . G . ha d f

a l l e n outof

he rc a rs e a t , of

f the c ouc h, a nd ont o the f l oorof the i rhom e . G ut i e r r e z a dm i tt e d tha the s om e t i m e s gota ngr y a nd y e l l e d a nd tha the ha d punc he d hol e s i n the w a l l s of hi s r e s i de nc e . G ut i e r r e z s t a t e d tha the got frustra t ed bei ng a f

i rs t -t i m e f

ather a nd “ had som e a ng erm anagem entprob l em s. ” G u t i errez ad m i tt ed tu rn i n g m u si c u p l o u d so h e w o u l d n o th ear C . G . cry. A g e n t W ilh e lm a s k e d G u tie r r e z if h e h a d m e n tio n e d C .G .’s a r m in ju r y to any nei gh bo rs , and G ut i erre z s ai d h e had no t . A gentW i l hel m then adv i se d G u tie r r e z th a t h e h a d a lr e a d y s p o k e n w ith S a y e r s a n d th a t G u tie r r e z h a d to ld S a y e r s tha tC . G . ’ s a r m w a s s w ol l e n f r om a bug bi t e . G ut i e r r e z a dm i tt e d tha the h a d l i e d t o Ag e n tWi l h e l m a n d th e n t e r m i n a t e d th e i n t e r v i e w. A no ther C ID i nv es t i gat or, E dw ar d L ee H arri s, w entt o G ut i erre z’ s r es i dence on F ebruary10 and t oo k p ho t og raph s of, am on g o ther thi ng s, the sofafr om w hi ch7

G u t i errez clai m ed C . G . h ad fal l en . H arri s est i m at ed th atth e seato f th e so fa w as a little le s s th a n a f

o o t o f f th e g r o u n d . A c c o r d in g to H a r r is , th e r e s id e n c e w a s d ir ty a nd ha d a f

oul s m e l l . H a r r i s a l s o obs e r ve d anum be rof pa t c he d hol e s i n a doora nd the w al l s a nd a dam aged do or fr am e. H os pi t a l s t a f

f a l s o not i f

i e d J e s s i c aC a r r a ba l l o, a n i nve s t i ga t orw i th the D epar tm entof C hi l dren and F am i l y S ervi ce s, w ho ca m e t o t he ho spi t al t o con du ct an in v es ti g atio n . C ar ra b allo in terv iew ed G u ti er re z, w h o to ld C ar ra b allo th at C .G .’ s a r m w a s i nj ur e d a thom e w he n s he f e l l f r om he rc a rs e a t , of

f the s of a a nd ont o the f l oor . G ut i e r r e z s a i d tha the pi c ke d C . G . up a nd he l d he runt i l s he s t oppe d c r y i ng a n d th a t h e h a d n o t n o tic e d a n y in ju r y a t th a t tim e . L a te rth a t d a y , h o w e v e r , a nei gh bo r w ho w as ca ri ng for C . G . po i nt ed ou tt o G ut i erre z thatC . G . had a brui se d a r m . G u tie r r e z th e n w a ite d f o rh is w if

e to c o m e h o m e f

r o m w o r k to ta k e C .G . to th e h o s p ita l. C . I n d i c t m e n t an d T r i al G u tie r r e z w a s in d ic te d b y a g r a n d ju r y f o r : ( 1 ) a s s a u lt o n C .G . r e s u ltin g in s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n

j u r y , n a me l y f

r a c tu r i n g h e rr i g h ta r m, i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C o u n t O n e ) ; ( 2 ) w illf u lly d e p r iv in g C .G . o f

n e c e s s a r y s u s te n a n c e to the e xt e nttha the rw e l l - be i ng w a s j e opa r di z e d, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 7 a nd 1 3 a n d O. C . G. A. § 1 6 - 5 - 7 0 ( a ) ( C o u n tT wo ) ; ( 3 ) m a l i c i o u s l y c a u s i n g C . G.8

exce ss i ve ph ys i ca l and m ent al pai n b y f ai l i ng t o see k i m m edi at e a nd nece ss ary m e di c a l a tt e nt i on f

ori nj ur i e s s uf

f e r e d t o C . G . ’ s r i ghta r m ( C ountT hr e e ) a nd f or i nj ur i e s t o C . G . ’ s r i bs a nd c l a vi c l e ( C ountF our ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 7 a nd 13 and O . C . G . A . § 1 6-5-70 (b). G ut i erre z pl ed no tgu i l ty. A ft era tri al , the j ury f o u n d G u tie r r e z g u ilty o n a ll f o u rc o u n ts . G ut i e r r e z f

i l e d a m ot i on f

ora j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , a r gui ng tha tthe go vernm enthad fai l ed t o p rove thatG ut i erre z w as re spon si bl e f or C . G . ’ s i nj uri es or thatthe offens es had o cc urre d o n l and subj ec tt o federa l j uri sdi ct i on , i . e. , F ort G ordo n. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on , concl ud i ng thatthe j ury’ s ver di ct w a s s u p p o r te d b y th e e v id e n c e . G u tie r r e z f ile d a m o tio n to a r r e s t th e ju d g m e n t, a r gui ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on ove rhi m be c a us e the gove r nm e nt had fai l ed t o p rove thatthe offens es occurr ed atF ortG ordo n. T he di stri ctcourt de ni e d the m ot i on. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d G u tie r r e z to 8 4 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. G u tie r r e z tim e ly f

ile d th is ap p e a l.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S u ff

i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce G ut i erre z does notchal l enge the suff i ci ency of the evi dence on t he three c ount s of c rue l ty t o a c hi l d. I ns t e a d, G ut i e r r e z c ha l l e nge s the s uf f i c i e nc y of

theSe c tio n 1 13 (a)( 6) state s: 2 (a) Wh oever, wi thin th esp e c ial ma ri tim eand

territo ri a l juri sdic tio n o f t heUnite d St ate s, is guilty of an a ssa ult sh a ll b epunis he d a s f

oll ow s:

.... (6) Assa ult resulting in serious bodily injury , by

a fineunder this title or imprisonment for not morethan ten year s, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) . 9 ev i d en ce o n l y as t o th e assau l tco u n tas t o C . G . ’ s arm fractu res. T o c onvi c tunde r18 U . S . C . § 113, the gove r nm e ntm us te s t a bl i s h tha tthe i nd i vi du al “ as saul t ed” a no ther pers on i n t he t erri t ori al j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S ta te s . 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 ( a ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . W illia m s , 1 9 7 F .3 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 6 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ). G ut i erre z w as char ged w i th ass aul tun der § 11 3(a) (6), w hi ch prov i des tha ta n “ a s s a ul t ” tha tr e s ul t s i n “ s e r i ous bodi l y i nj ur y ” i s puni s he d by

“ i m pr i s onm e ntf

ornotm or e tha n t e n y e a r s . ” 18 U . S . C . § 113( a ) ( 6) . S e c t i on 113 2 do es no tdefi ne “ as saul t , ” butthi s C ou rthas gi ven t he t erm i t s c om m on l aw m ea ni ng . W i l l i am s, 19 7 F . 3d at10 96 . F urther, w e have concl ud ed thatan

“ assau l t ” w i th i n th e m ean i n g o f § 1 1 3 i n cl u d es a co m m o n l aw b at t ery d efi n ed as a w i l l f ul , of f e ns i ve t ouc hi ng, r e ga r dl e s s of the i nt e ntt o do phy s i c a l ha r m . I d. H er e, w e f

irst co n clu d e th at th er e is a m p le ev id en ce to su p p o rt G u ti er re z’s as saul tconv i ct i on . G ut i erre z noton l y w as t aki ng ca re of C . G . i m m edi at el y bef ore hi s w i f e di s c ove r e d the ba by ’ s s w ol l e n a r m , butw a s r e l uc t a ntt o t a ke C . G . t o theIn B onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 3 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior 10 hos pi t a l . G ut i e r r e z di d notdi s put e tha tC . G . ha d the c ha r ge d br oke n a r m , butga ve d if f e r e n t e x p la n a tio n s f

o rth e in ju r y b e f o r e a n d d u r in g th e in v e s tig a tio n . S pe c i f i c a l l y , G ut i e r r e z t ol d hi s w i f e tha tC . G . w a s m e r e l y s or e , t ol d hi s ne i ghbor thatC . G . had suffe re d a bu g b i t e a nd t ol d d oct ors a nd i nv es t i gat ors thatC . G . had f a l l e n outof

the c a rs e a ton the c ouc h a nd ont o the f l oor . E xpe r tt e s t i m ony by doc t or s i ndi c a t e d tha tC . G . ’ s a r m f r a c tur e s w e r e the r e s ul tof a di r e c tbl ow a nd a tw i st i ng m ot i on and w er e i ncon si st entw i th t he expl anat i on G ut i erre z had gi ven th em . D o ct o rs al so t est i fi ed th atth ey b el i ev ed C . G . ’ s i n j u ry w as d u e t o ab u se gi ven t he nature of the i nj ury a nd C . G . ’ s very y ou ng age. T hi s e vi dence consi dere d cum ul at i vel y w as suff i ci entfor aj ury t o con cl ud e thatG ut i erre z c ause d C . G . ’ s arm fractu res. A ddi t i ona l l y , the r e i s no m e r i tt o G ut i e r r e z ’ s c l a i m tha tthe gove r nm e nt fa i l ed t o sho w t erri t ori al j uri sdi ct i on . A l tho ug h t erri t ori al j uri sdi ct i on i s a n es se nt i al el em entof the offens e, the go vernm entm ustes t abl i sh the l ocat i on of a c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty onl y by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ow e r s , 660 F . 2d 527, 531 ( 5th C i r . 1981) ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe gove r nm e nt e s t a bl i s he d s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on by pr ovi ng by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence thatthe defendantabused her chi l d o n a m i l i t ary bas e) . T he part i es 3to October 1, 1981. In his argument, Gutierre z uses interchang eably the terms subjec t matter jurisdiction and 4 venue. T o the extent Gutierrez argues that the Southern District of Georg ia, Augusta Division, wa s an im

prop e r v e nu efo r him t o b etrie d, heha s w aive d th at argument b y failingto raiseit in the district court. SeeUnited States v. Gre er, 440 F .3d 1267, 1271 (11th Cir. 2006). The g overnment argues that Gutierrez’s statement wa s not a confe ssion for purposes of 5 J ackson v. D enno bec ause it wa s not inculpatory . See 18 U.S.C. § 3501(e) (codify ing Jackson v. Denno a nd defininga conf

ession as “a

ny confe ssion of guilt of any criminal off

ense or anyselfincriminatingstatement madeor orally g iven or in writing ”). B eca use weconcludethat Gutierre z failed to alleg e facts war rantinga hea

ringin any

event, weneed not resolve whether Gutierre z’s statement was a c onfession. 11 st i pu l at ed thatF ortG ordo n w as subj ec tt o t he t erri t ori al j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es. B ased o n th e ev i d en ce p resen t ed , a reaso n ab l e j u ry co u l d al so fi n d b y a

4 pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e tha tthe a s s a ul toc c ur r e d i n G ut i e r r e z ’ s hom e on F ortG ordo n m i l i t ary bas e. T here fore , the di stri ctcourthad subj ec tm att er j ur i s di c t i on a nd pr ope r l y de ni e d G ut i e r r e z ’ s m ot i on f ora j udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l a nd m o tio n to a r r e s t th e ju d g m e n t. B. St a t e m e nt t o Se r g e a nt K a hn G ut i e r r e z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d w he n i tr e f us e d t o hol d a J a c ks on v. D e nno he a r i ng be f or e a dm i tt i ng hi s w r i tt e n s t a t e m e ntt a ke n by S e r ge a nt K a hn. 5 U nd erJa ckson v . D enno , “ [a ] defe nd antobj ec t i ng t o t he adm i ss i on of a confes si on i s e nt i t l ed t o a fa i r hea ri ng i n w hi ch bo th t he un derl yi ng fa ctual i ss ues and t he vo l un t ar i ness of hi s c on fe ss i on ar e a ctual l y a nd re l i abl y det erm i ned. ”12

J a c ks on v. D e nno, 378 U . S . 368, 380, 84 S . C t . 1774, 1783 ( 1964) . S uc h a h e a r in g , to b e c o n d u c te d o u ts id e th e p r e s e n c e o f th e ju r y , “is c o n s titu tio n a lly m a n d a te d f

o ra d e f e n d a n t w h o tim e ly u r g e s th a t h is c o n f e s s io n is in a d m is s ib le be c a us e notvol unt a r i l y gi ve n. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi ds on, 768 F . 2d 1266, 1270 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . H ow e ve r , w e w i l l notr e m e dy a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o hol d a J a c k s o n v . D e n n o h e a r in g u n le s s th e d e f e n d a n t “a lle g e [ s ] f

a c ts w h ic h w o u ld , if pr ove n true , i ndi c a t e the i nvol unt a r i ne s s of hi s c onf e s s i on. ” I d. H e r e , G u tie r r e z f

a ile d to a lle g e f

a c ts in d ic a tin g th a t h is s ta te m e n t g iv e n to S e r g e a n t K a h n w a s in v o lu n ta r y . A f te rth e r e tu r n o f

th e s u p e r s e d in g in d ic tm e n t, G u t i errez fil ed a m o t i o n t o su p p ress st at i n g th at , “ [s] i n ce d i sco v ery an d d efen se i nv es t i gat i on ar e s t i l l i ncom pl et e, the D ef endantfi l es thi s M ot i on i n g ener al form t o p re se rve h[i s] ri gh tt o chal l enge the l egal i ty of a ny se ar ch or se i zure of evi dence tha tthe G ove r nm e ntm i ghti ntr oduc e a ga i ns thi [ m ] a ttr i a l a s w e l l a s a ny s ta te m e n ts .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t la te rd ir e c te d G u tie r r e z to p a r tic u la r iz e h is s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n w ith in te n d a y s o ra h e a r in g w o u ld n o t b e s c h e d u le d o n h is s uppr e s s i on m ot i on. G ut i e r r e z di d notf i l e a m or e pa r t i c ul a r i z e d m ot i on. A ttr i a l , G ut i e r r e z obj e c t e d t o the a dm i s s i on of the s t a t e m e ntdur i ng the g o v er n m en t’ s d irec t ex am in atio n o f S er g ea n t K ah n . S p ec ifically, G u ti er re z’s c o u n s e l s ta te d th a t “if

th e y a r e g o in g to a tte m p t to in tr o d u c e th is s ta te m e n t I w ill13

a s k tha tw e ha ve a J a c ks on v. D e nno he a r i ng be f or e i ti s i ntr oduc e d be f

or e the j ury. ” G ut i erre z’ s c ou nsel di d n otar t i cul at e the basi s f or supp re ss i on or i dent i fy any f ac t s s ug gest i ng thatG ut i erre z’ s s t at em entw as i nv ol un t ary. A ft erthe di stri ct c our tde ni e d G ut i e r r e z ’ s i m pr om ptu r e que s tf ora J a c ks on v. D e nno he a r i ng, G ut i erre z r enew ed hi s obj ec t i on , bu tdi d n otar gu e thatthe st at em entw as i n v o l u n t ary. In ad d it io n , n o n e o f th e e v id en ce p re se n ted at trial i n d icates th at G u ti er re z’s s t a t e m e ntw a s i nvol unt a r y . S e r ge a ntK a hn m e tw i th G ut i e r r e z a tthe hos pi t a l a nd d ir e c te d h im to m e e t h e ra t th e m ilita r y p o lic e s ta te m e n t to g iv e a s ta te m e n t. G ut i e r r e z dr ove hi m s e l f t o the m i l i t a r y pol i c e s t a t i on, c om pl e t e d hi s s t a t e m e nt w ith in a h a lf

h o u r , a n d w a s ir r ita te d b u t c o o p e r a tiv e . T h e in te r v ie w to o k p la c e in a n o f f i c e wi th i n th e m i l i t a r y p o l i c e s t a t i o n wi th o n l y S e r g e a n tKa h n p r e s e n t . An M P patrol l ed the hal l s out si de as a s ec uri ty m ea sure . S er geantK ahn adv i se d G ut i erre z of hi s M i ra nd a r i gh t s, i ncl ud i ng hi s r i gh tt o rem ai n si l ent . G ut i erre z then e x e c u te d a M ir a n d a w a iv e r , w h ic h a ls o a d v is e d h im th a t h e c o u ld r e m a in s ile n t. S e r ge a ntK a hn r e vi e w e d G ut i e r r e z ’ s ve r s i on of e ve nt s w i th hi m a c oupl e of t i m e s a nd the n a s ke d G ut i e r r e z t o w r i t e i tdow n on the na r r a t i ve por t i on of the s t a t e m e ntf

or m . G ut i e r r e z di d s o. S e r ge a ntK a hn the n c om pl e t e d the que s t i on a nd a ns w e rpor t i on of

the s t a t e m e ntf

or m . G ut i e r r e z w a s pe r m i tt e d t o ve r i f y theIt is unclear whether Gutierre z is contendingthat he also wa s entitled to a hea ringon a 6 claim that his statement was be ing of fered in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602 (1966). SeeUnited States v. Arbolae z, 450 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2006). However, Gutierrez did not ask for a Mira nda hea ringin the district court, and therec ord here sh ow s Guti e rre z kn ow ing ly and vo luntari ly

waive d h is M iranda

ri ghts . 14 qu es t i on s a nd answ er s a nd i ni t i al ed ea ch t o sho w thathe agree d w i th t he answ er s S er geantK ahn h ad w ri tt en. T he af fi davi tpo rt i on of the st at em ent , w hi ch G ut i erre z s ig n e d , a v e r s th a t G u tie r r e z w a s n o t th r e a te n e d o rf o r c e d to g iv e a s ta te m e n t. O n appe a l , the onl y f

a c tG ut i e r r e z poi nt s t o i n s uppor tof hi s c l a i m tha the w as en t i t l ed t o a Jack so n v . D en n o h eari n g i s th atS erg ean tK ah n ad m i tt ed o n cro ss exam i nat i on thatdu ri ng the i nt ervi ew G ut i erre z w as no tfr ee t o l ea ve the m i l i t ary pol i c e s t a t i on. T he m e r e f a c ttha tG ut i e r r e z w a s i n pol i c e c us t ody w he n he ga ve hi s s t a t e m e ntdoe s not , a l one , e s t a bl i s h c oe r c i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom ps on, 4 2 2 F . 3 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 6 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (ex p l ai n i n g th ata fi n d i n g o f i n v o l u n t ari n ess u n d e rth e F if

th A m e n d m e n t’s D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e r e q u ir e s a s a p r e r e q u is ite c o e r c iv e g o v e r n m e n t c o n d u c t s u c h a s “s u b je c tin g th e a c c u s e d to a n e x h a u s tin g ly l ong i nt e r r oga t i on, the appl i c a t i on of phy s i c a l f

or c e orthe thr e a tt o do s o, orthe m a k i n g o f

a p r o m i s e th a ti n d u c e s th e c o n f e s s i o n ” ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i tt e d ) ) . On thi s r e c or d, w e c a nnots a y the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n de ny i ng G ut i e r r e z ’ s r e que s tf or a J a c ks on v. D e nno he a r i ng. 6 C . M ot i on f

or a M i s t r i al15

G u tie r r e z c o n te n d s th a t te s tim o n y e lic ite d b y th e g o v e r n m e n t a b o u t h is deci si on t o t erm i nat e hi s i nt ervi ew w i th A gentW i l hel m i m perm i ss i bl y c om m ent ed o n G u tie r r e z ’s d e c is io n to in v o k e h is r ig h t to r e m a in s ile n t. A c c o r d in g to G u tie r r e z , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e g r a n te d h is m o tio n f o ra m is tr ia l a f

te rth is t e s t i m ony w a s gi ve n. D u r in g tr ia l, A g e n t W ilh e lm w a s c r o s s - e x a m in e d v ig o r o u s ly a b o u t h is fai l u re t o t ak e n o t es o r o th erw i se reco rd h i s i n t erv i ew w i th G u t i errez. W h en fi rst a s k e d wh y h e h a d n o tt a k e n n o t e s , Ag e n tWi l h e l m r e s p o n d e d , “ Ge n e r a l l y wh a twe [ a tC I D ] do i s w e a s k the s us pe c tt o ty pe up a na r r a t i ve w hi c h i n thi s c a s e the i nt ervi ew ended b ef

ore w e had a chance t o d o t hat . ” L at er , w hen d ef ense coun se l p re ss ed A g en t W il h elm ab o u t h is fa il u re to re co rd im p o rtan t asp ec ts o f G u ti er re z’s i n t e r v i e w, Ag e n tWi l h e l m r e s p o n d e d , “ As I s a i d u n d e rth e n o r m a l p r o c e d u r e we have a typed narra t i ve re coun t i ng hi s f ac t s of the ca se and i n t hi s c as e w e di dn ’ tget to th a t p o in t b e c a u s e h e te r m in a te d th e in te r v ie w .” D uri ng re di re ctexam i nat i on , the go vernm entas ked A gentW i l hel m w hether i tw as hi s norm al procedure t o o bt ai n a w ri tt en st at em entfr om a s uspecthe had in te r v ie w e d . G u tie r r e z ’s c o u n s e l o b je c te d , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d th a t it w oul d a l l ow the que s t i on a nd s ugge s t e d tha tthe m a tt e rbe a ddr e s s e d a tthe ne xt oppor tuni ty w i thoutthe j ur y pr e s e nt . T he f ol l ow i ng e xc ha nge the n oc c ur r e d:16 Q . W he n y ou are i nt e r vi e w i ng s om e one do the y ha ve the ri gh tt o t erm i nat e thati nt ervi ew before gi vi ng you t hat w r itte n s ta te m e n t? A . Y es. Q . Is thatw hathapp ened i n t hi s c as e? A . Y es. A tthe ne xtbr e a k, out s i de the pr e s e nc e of the j ur y , G ut i e r r e z obj e c t e d t o the gove r nm e ntr e f

e r r i ng t o G ut i e r r e z ’ s vol unt a r i l y t e r m i na t i ng the i nt e r vi e w a nd m o v ed fo r a m i stri al . T h e d i stri ctco u rtco n cl u d ed th atG u t i errez’s crosse xa m i na t i on ha d i nvi t e d the t e s t i m ony , ove r rul e d the obj e c t i on a nd de ni e d the m o tio n f o ra m is tr ia l. U nd erD oyl e v. O hi o, a prose cut or’ s “ use f or i m peac hm entpu rposes of [a d efen d an t ’ s] si l en ce, atth e t i m e o f arrestan d aft er receiving M i ran d a w arn i n g s, vi ol a t e [ s ] the D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e of the F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt . ” 426 U . S . 610, 6 1 9 , 9 6 S . C t. 2 2 4 0 , 2 2 4 5 (1 9 7 6 ). H o w ev er , n o t ev er y m en ti o n o f a d ef en d an t’ s pos t - M i r a nda s i l e nc e i s a D oy l e vi ol a t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S tubbs , 944 F . 2d 828, 834- 35 ( 11th C i r . 1991) . R a the r , a D oy l e vi ol a t i on oc c ur s w he n “ the s ta te m e n t w a s m a n if

e s tly in te n d e d o rw a s o f s u c h c h a r a c te rth a t a ju r y w o u ld n a tu r a lly a n d n e c e s s a r ily ta k e it to b e a c o m m e n t o n th e f a ilu r e o f a n a c c u s e d to t e s t i f y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ha s t a i n, 198 F . 3d 1338, 1351 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . “ T he qu es t i on i s notw hether the j ury possi bl y or e ven p robabl y w ou l d v i ew the re m ark i n t hi s m anner, bu tw hether the j ury nec es sa ri l y w ou l d h ave don e s o. ” U ni t edWe reviewfor a n abuse of

discretion a district c ourt’s denial of a motion for a mistrial 7 based on a

n improper c omment on the defendant’s right to remain silent. Knowles, 66 F .3d at 1163. We have he ld that “[a] defendant is entitled to a grant of mistrial only upon a showingof substantial prejudice .” Chastain, 198 F .3d at 1352. 17 S ta te s v . K n o w le s , 6 6 F .3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) . T h e d istrict co u rt m u st co n sid erth e r em ar k in co n tex t t o d eter m in e th e p ro se cu to r’s m ot i ve a nd the i m pa c tupon the j ur y . I d. 7 G i ven t he cont exti n w hi ch the t es t i m on y w as el i ci t ed, w e c on cl ud e that there w as no D oyl e vi ol at i on . A gentW i l hel m ’ s t es t i m on y thatG ut i erre z t e r m i na t e d the i nt e rvi e w w a s e l i c i t e d tw i c e by G ut i e r r e z ’ s ow n c ouns e l dur i ng c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n w ith o u t a n y o b je c tio n . G u tie r r e z ’s c o u n s e l e f f e c tiv e ly i m peac hed A gentW i l hel m by i nferri ng thatA gentW i l hel m had b ee n n egl i gentat be s ta nd pos s i bl y unde r ha nde d i n f a i l i ng t o t a ke not e s dur i ng the i nt e r vi e w . T he gove r nm e nt ’ s que s t i ons on r e di r e c tw e r e i nt e nde d t o r e ha bi l i t a t e A ge ntW i l he l m by c l a r i f y i ng tha tA ge ntW i l he l m ha d a c t e d i n a c c or da nc e w i th C I D pol i c y dur i ng the i nt e r vi e w , a nd tha tthe f a i l ur e t o m e m or i a l i z e the i nt e r vi e w i n w r i t i ng w a s notthe r e s ul tof e i the rne gl i ge nc e ors om e ne f a r i ous pl a n, butbe c a us e G ut i e r r e z e nde d the i nt e r vi e w be f

or e tha tc oul d happe n. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z - C a r de na s , 866 F . 2d 39 0, 39 4 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( expl ai ni ng thata prose cut or m ay use r edi re ct e x a m in a tio n “to r e b u t f

a ls e im p r e s s io n s th a t a r is e f r o m c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n ” ) . In su m , i td o es n o tap p ear fro m th e reco rd th atth e g o v ern m en t ’ s p u rp o seTh is C ourt reviews fo r a

bu seof dis c retio n a

dis tric t c ourt ’s su

pp le mental c ha

rg ein 8 r e s p o n s etoa

ju r y qu e s ti o n . Un it e d

St ate s v . D e lg a d o , 5 6 F . 3 d 1 3 5 7 , 1 3 6 3 ( 1 1 th

Cir . 1 9 9 5 ) . We review the challeng ed jury instruction in the context “of the entire jur y charg e, in light of

the indictment, evidencepresented and a rgument of counse l to determine whether the jury was misled and whether the jury understood the issue.”United States v. J ohnson, 139 F.3d 1359, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (quotation marks omitted). 18 w a s to c o m m e n t u p o n G u tie r r e z ’s d e c is io n to in v o k e h is r ig h t to r e m a in s ile n t. N orc a n w e s a y tha tthe gove r nm e nt ’ s que s t i ons a nd A ge ntW i l he l m ’ s a ns w e r s on re di re ctw er e “ of such a c hara ct er ” thatthe j ury nec es sa ri l y w ou l d h ave t aken them to b e a c o m m e n t o n G u tie r r e z ’s d e c is io n to in v o k e h is r ig h t to r e m a in s ile n t. T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d e n ie d G u tie r r e z ’s m o tio n f o ra m is tr ia l. D . Ju r y I n s t r u c t i on F i na l l y , G ut i e r r e z c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n gi vi ng a s u p p le m e n ta l ju r y in s tru c tio n o n th e m e a n in g o f th e te r m “in te n tio n a l a s s a u lt.” 8 D ur i ng the i ni t i a l j ur y c ha r ge , the di s tr i c tc our ti ns truc t e d the j ur y on the el em ent s of a n ass aul tun der 18 U . S . C . § 1 13 (a )( 6). S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourt ex p l ai n ed , am o n g o th er th i n g s, th atth e g o v ern m en tw as req u i red t o p ro v e th ese three el em ent s of a n ass aul tun der 18 U . S . C . § 1 33 (a )( 6): (1) thatG ut i erre z in te n tio n a lly a s s a u lte d C .G .; ( 2 ) th a t G u tie r r e z in te n tio n a lly a s s au lte d C .G . w ith in the t e r r i t or i a l j ur i s di c t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; a nd ( 3) tha t , a s a r e s ul tof the as saul t , C . G . suff

er ed a s er i ou s bod i l y i nj ury. A ft erre t i ri ng t o d el i bera t e, the j ury s e n t a n o te to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta tin g , “N e e d ju d g e to d e f in e ‘in te n tio n a l a s s a u lt’19

p a g e tw e lv e o f

in s tru c tio n s .” T h e p a r tie s a g r e e d th a t th e ju r y w a s p r o b a b ly c o n f u s e d b y th e f

a c t th a t a § 1 1 3 ( a ) a s s au lt e n c o m p a s s e s th e c o m m o n la w c o n c e p ts o f b o th a s s a u lt a n d b a tte r y a n d a g r e e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld c la r if y th is p o in t. T he j ury w as brou gh ti nt o t he courtroom . T he di stri ctcourtfi rs tre m i nd ed the j ur y of

i t s e a r l i e rc ha r ge a nd a dvi s e d the j ur y nott o c ons i de ra ny pa r tof the i ns truc t i ons a s m or e i m por t a nttha n othe rpa r t s . T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n r e r e a d the i ns truc t i ons r e ga r di ng a § 113( a ) ( 6) of f e ns e a nd the de f

i ni t i on of the w or ds

“ kn ow i ng l y” and “ w i l ful l y. ” T he di stri ctcourtnextexpl ai ned t he com m on l aw co n cep t s o f assau l tan d b at t ery, as fo l l o w s: W h a t d o e s a s s a u lt m e a n ? . . . U nd e rthe Engl i s h c ommon l a w the r e w e r e the tw o r e l a t ed c o n cept s tha tI a m s ur e y ou ha ve he a r d m a ny , m a ny t i m e s a nd pe r haps y o u ’ v e w o n d e r e d w h a t e x a c tly it w a s a n d I a m g o in g to e x p la in it to you. W hat I’ m t al ki ng abou t i s as saul t and batt er [y] an d very com m on l y these t erm s a re used t o g eth er, i n con j un ct i on w i th eac h othe ra nd a l m os tm e a ni ng the s a m e thi ng. A n a s s a ul t , ge ne r a l l y , i s t o p u t s om e one i n f e a rof be i ng harm ed. Y ou ca n d o t hatl un gi ng atsom eone, char gi ng atsom eone, po i nt i ng a gun atsom eone or som ething l i ke that . I use tho se on l y a s e x a m p le s o f

th e c o n c e p t. N o w , a b a tte r y is th e e x te n s io n o rth e c u lm in a tio n o f a n a s s a u lt. A ba tt e r y i s the a c tua l unl a w f ul t ouc hi ng of

s om e one . I tc a n be som ethi ng as m in o r [a s] a s i m pl e t ou chi ng . Itca n b e at ou chi ng i n an i nappr opr i a t e pl a c e . O r a b a tt e r y m i ghtbe a t ouc hi ng ora bl ow s u f f ic ie n t to p r o d u c e a s e r io u s b o d ily in ju r y . S o , y o u c a n s a y th a t a ba tt e r y a l w a y s i nc l ude s a n as s a ul t , buttha ta n a s s a ul ti s orm a y be the p ream b l e o f a b at t ery.20

T he di s tr i c tc our t al so ex p l a i ne d how the s e c om m on l a w c onc e pt s appl i e d i n a § 1 3 3 (a) o ffen se, as fo l l o w s:

N ow , I don’ tw a ntt o t ry t o di s s e c tthe f e de r a l l a w ort e l l y ou exac t l y w hatthe pu rposes of the C on gres s w er e, b u t I w i l l t el l you t hat th is c o n c ep to f assau l ti n fed eral l aw g o es b ack a l o n g w ay an d i tis m y be l i ef,

– I c a n’ tt e l l y ou thi s i s the l a w , buti ti s m y be l i e f – tha tthe pe opl e tha tw r ot e the f e de r a l st a tut e w e r e tr y i ng t o s i m pl i f y i ta nd tr y i ng t o s a y ba s i c a l l y w e a r e di s t i ngui s hi ng be tw e e n a s s a ul ta nd bat t ery. W e ar e carryi ng thatcom m on l aw di st i nct i on i nt o t he fe dera l j u ris p ru d ence [s i c] . W e a re go i ng t o u se j uston e w ord and w e a re goi ng t o us e a s s a ul t . I f y ou thi nk the a tt em p t t ow a r d s i m pl i f i c a t i on h as created co n fu si o n th ati s yo u r b u si n ess. M y p o i ntri gh tno w i s thati n t he fe dera l l aw as saul tand b att ery a r e the s a m e thi ng. A ba tt e r y be i ng a c om pl e t e d a s s a ul t , i f y ou w oul d. A n i nd i vi du al m ay com m i tan as sault e ither by a n i nt ent i on al and v ol un t ary a ctw hi ch do es i nj ury t o ano ther pers on o r a n i nt e nt i o n al vol unt a r y a c tw hi c h i s a thr e a tt o do i t . S o, the de f i ni t i on o f a s s a u lt i s b r o a d e r i n th e la w in th e f e d e r a l s e c to rth a n is in v o lv e d in thi s c as e. T he di stri ctcourt t hen exp l ai ned t hatthe go vernm ent ’ s c as e i nv ol ved an al l eged co m p l et ed assau l tth atp ro d u ced an actu al i n j u ry, rath er th an j u sta th reato f i n j u ry: Q ui t e c l ea rl y und er th e ev idence , un der the ar gu m entand u nd er th e th e o r y o f

[ th e ] G o v e r n m e n t’s c a s e th e p r o s e c u tio n is a lle g in g in the i ndi c tm e ntand ha s a r gue d nottha tthe D e f e nda ntG ut i e r r e z put ba by [ C . G . ] i n f

e a rof a n i nj u ry[. ] [T ] o the c ontr a r y the the or y of the G ov ernm ent ’ s c as e i s thatcond uctof the defendantac tu al l y produ ce d a n i n j u ry t o the c hi l d. S o, he r e i n thi s c a s e the the or y of the G o v er n m en t , the al l egat i on s a nd the ar gu m ent , i s thatthe chi l d w as a c tu a lly in

ju r e d a s a r e s u lt o f

th is a lle g e d a s s a u lt. W hi l e one m i ghtc om m i ta n a s s a ul t u nde rf e de r a l l a w by thr e a t e ni ng a n i nj ur y i f the i n d i v i dua l ha s a tthe s a m e t i m e the apparentpres entabi l i ty t o p rodu ce an i nju ry that ’ s notw hatw e a re t alk i ng abou there . Q ui t e c l ea rl y a nd si m pl y the G ov ernm entar gu es21

a nd i t s the or y of

the c a s e i s tha tthe c onduc tof the D e f

e nda nt G u t i errez actuall y p ro d u ced an i n j u ry. F i nal l y, the di stri ctre peat ed the i nstruct i on re l at i ng t o t he three el em ent s of a § 1 1 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) o f

f e n s e . A f te ra s id e b a r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e m in d e d th e ju r y n o t to si ng l e outany of hi s i nstruct i on s a s havi ng spec i al si gn i fi ca nce a nd re i t er at ed that th e te r m “in te n tio n a l” m e a n t a p u rp o s e f u l a c t a n d d id n o t r e q u ir e th e g o v e r n m e n t to p r o v e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t in te n d e d a ll th e c o n s e q u e n c e s r e s u ltin g f r o m th e a c t: M e m b ers o f th e j u ry, I’ m n o t g o i n g t o t el l yo u ag ai n th at yo u s h o u ld no tsi ng l e outany one of m y i nstructio n s alon e a s havi ng any s peci al s i gni f i c a nc e ora ny o n e o f

m y i ns truc t i ons a l one a s s t a t i ng the l a w , but I w i l l t e l l y ou w i th r e s pe c tt o t h i s co n c e ptof i nt e nt i ona l , w hi c h i s one of the w ords you focused on i n you r qu est i on , i ti s notnece ss ary that the G ove r n m en tpr ove tha tthe de f e nda nti nt e nde d a l l of the conseque n ce s th at m i gh tfl ow fr om an ac t . Iti s onl y nec es sa ry that t he G ove r nm e ntpr ove be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe de f e nda nt di d t he ac tor the thin g w hi ch the l aw forbi ds on pu rpose. T hati tw as d o n e in te n tio n a lly a n d n o t a s a r e s u lt o f a m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t. A f t e rthe j ur y l e f

tthe c our tr oom , G ut i e r r e z obj e c t e d “ t o tha tpor t i on of the c ha r ge tha tde a l tw i th the pr oof of f e r e d by the G ove r nm e nt ” a nd “ t o the l a s tpa r tof the c h a r g e d e a lin g w ith th e in te n t to c a u s e h a r m to th e v ic tim .” O n appe a l , G ut i e r r e z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n gi vi ng the s uppl e m e nt a l i ns truc t i on by : ( 1) m i s s t a t i ng the l a w of “ a s s a ul t ” ; a nd ( 2) in te r je c tin g th e ju d g e ’s o p in io n s a b o u t th e G o v e r n m e n t’s th e o r y o f th e c a s e . W ith r e ga r d t o the f

i r s ta r gum e nt , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notm i s s t a t e the22

l a w on the m e a ni ng of

“ i nt e nt i ona l a s s a ul t . ” A l though § 113 doe s notde f i ne

“ as saul t , ” thi s C ou rthas gi ven t he t erm i t s c om m on l aw m ea ni ng and h as c o n c lu d e d th a t a s s a u lt c a n b e “a b a tte r y , a n a tte m p te d b a tte r y , o ra n a c t th a t p u ts a n o th e rin r e a s o n a b le ap p r e h e n s io n o f r e c e iv in g im m e d ia te b o d ily h a r m .” W i l l i a m s , 197 F . 3d a t1096. F ur the r m or e , a § 113 a s s a ul tby ba tt e r y i nc l ude s the

“ l e a s tt ouc hi ng of

a nothe r ’ s pe r s on w i l f

ul l y ” a nd doe s notr e qui r e a n i nt e ntt o do bodi l y ha r m . I d. W e a l s o do nota gr e e tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c om m e nt s “ ha d the e f f e c tof i nf e r r i ng t o the j ur y tha tthe G ove r nm e ntha d e s t a bl i s he d i t s bur de n of pr oof i n the c a s e .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s u p p le m e n ta l in s tru c tio n e x p la in e d th e m u ltip le co n ce p ts en co m p as se d w ith in th e ter m “ass au lt ” u n d er§ 1 1 3 . T h e d istrict co u rt’s cl ar i fi ca t i on as t o t he go vernm ent ’ s theory of the ca se m er el y a dv i se d t he j ury that i tneed no tconsi der the ot her defi ni t i on s of a ss aul tbeca use the go vernm enthad pr oc e e de d onl y on the the or y tha ta n a s s a ul tby ba tt e r y ha d be e n c om m i tt e d. AF F I RME D.