# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 32 48

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

W il la rd Beg ay

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: May 11, 2 01 5 Fil ed : J ul y

29 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

W il la rd Beg ay ch al le ng es th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al

. He arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce i s i ns uf

fic ie nt to pro ve he ass au lt ed a fed eral em pl oyee in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 11 . Havi ng juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.Thi s “ co ur t re v ie ws de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su st ai n a

co nv ic ti on .” Unit

ed St at es v. Wi es t , 59 6 F.3 d 90 6, 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). A ve rd ic t is

su st ai ne d if “ an y rat io na l tri er of fact co ul d ha ve fo un d th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of th e cri m e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Ja ck so n v. V ir gi ni a , 44 3 U.S. 30 7, 31 9 (19 79 ). Thi s co ur t re vi ews th e ev id en ce m os t fa vo rab ly to t he ve rd ic t. Id

.

Mi ch ael W il li am s was a co rrec ti on al co un se lo r at th e Fed eral Med ic al Cen te r (FM C). One of hi s du ti es was t o ai d in co nf li ct res ol ut io n be twee n in m at es

. He de ci de d t o m ov e Beg ay

to an ot he r cel l fo r hi s s afet y

. He cal le d Beg ay to hi s o ffi ce to te ll hi m th at

. At th e en d of th e co nv ers at io n, W il li am s be ga n to ha nd cu ff Beg ay in or de r to ta ke hi m to hi s new cell

. Beg ay tu rn ed an d p un ch ed W il li am s in th e le ft
ey e wit h a cl os ed fis t. W il li am s s t e p p e d b a ck ward

. Beg ay pi ck ed up a co m pu te r pr in te r, rai se d it ov er hi s he ad , an d th rew it a t Wi ll ia m s’s face

. The pr in te r hi t W il li am s jus t be lo w hi s le ft ey e. W il li am s rad io ed fo r he lp

. Sev eral of fic ers rem ov ed Beg ay fro m th e ro om

. W il li am s su ffer ed an or bi ta l bo ne frac tu re an d la cera ti on s on th e ch eek an d e y el id

.

A vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 11 1( b) req ui res th at (1 ) Beg ay fo rci bl y as sa ul te d a fed eral em

pl oyee (2 ) vo lu nt ari ly an d in te nt io na ll y (3 ) in fli ct in g bo di ly in ju r y ( 4 ) whe n th e fed eral em

pl oyee w a s e n g ag ed in th e pe rfo rm an ce of of fic ia l du ti es

. Se e Unit ed Sta te s v. Dr ap ea u , 64 4 F .3d 64 6, 6 52 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.
Beg ay do es no t co nt es t th at W il li am s was as sa ul te d. He te st ifi ed he di d no t do it ; Will ia m s t es ti fie d h e d id . W il li am s al so id en ti fie d B eg ay in a vi de o ent eri ng hi s of fic e an d le av in g in ha nd cu ffs

. Two ot he r co rrec ti on al of fic ers te st ifi ed th at Beg ay

was th e on ly pe rs on in th e ro om wit h W il li am s whe n th ey arri ve d. “ The jury ha s th e

so le res po ns ib il it y to res ol ve co nf li ct s or co nt rad ic ti on s in te st im on y , an d cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are res ol ve d in fav or of th e ve rd ic t.” Wi es t , 59 6 F.3 d at 91 0. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce m os t fav or ab ly to th e ve rd ic t, a rat io na l jury co ul d fin d th at Beg ay was th e o ne who att ack ed W il li am s.

-2

-The ot he r el em en ts are un di sp ut ed

. W il li am s’s te st im on y , ph ot og rap hs of hi s

face , an d th e te st im on y of th ree ot he r wit ne ss es sh ow act ua l ph y si cal co nt act an d bo di ly in jury. Se e U

n i t e d S ta te s v. Schr ad

er , 10 F.3 d 13 45 , 13 48 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). W il li am s’s j ob as a co rrec ti on al co un se lo r was to ai d in co nf li ct res ol ut io n bet ween in m at es , in cl ud in g rel oc at in g Beg ay fo r hi s sa fet y

. Se e Unit ed St a t e s v . St re et , 66 F.3 d 96 9, 97 8 (8 th C i r. 19 95 ) (“ Eng ag ed in

. . . pe rfo rm an ce of of fic ia l du ti es ”
req ui res “ act in g wit hi n th e sc op e of wha t [h e was ] em pl oyed to do ”). A rat io na l jury

co ul d fi nd be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t t ha t Be ga y vi ol at ed 18 U.S.C. § 1 11

.

** ** ** *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-