Opinion ID: 3044975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This is an appeal of a conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b), assault of a federal officer that resulted in bodily injury.
On July 16, 2011, Appellant, Rafael Diddier Gutierrez, and his father, Rafael Arturo Gutierrez (R.A. Gutierrez), age 63, were returning from a cruise in the Bahamas. 1 They disembarked from their ship and proceeded into the Customs area of the Port of Palm Beach in West Palm Beach, Florida. At the time, United States Customs and Border Protection Officer Thomas Degraves and his canine partner, Guerro, were checking bags for narcotics as passengers entered the Customs area. As the security-camera footage that was shown to the jury demonstrates, Degraves was in full uniform, badge in clear view on his chest, holding Guerro by the leash, and standing no more than two feet from the passengers entering the Customs area. Guerro was sniffing each passenger’s bag as they walked past Degraves. Honorable Michael M. Baylson, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 1 Because the jury found in favor of conviction, we review the facts in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Jensen, 689 F.2d 1361, 1362 n.1 (11th Cir. 1982). 2 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 3 of 25 As he entered the Customs area to pass through inspection, Appellant walked past Degraves and Guerro. A short time later, R.A. Gutierrez entered the Customs area and passed Degraves and Guerro. Degraves testified that as R.A. Gutierrez was passing him, Guerro signaled the detection of a narcotic in the area. DE 60:107. At this time, R.A. Gutierrez whistled at the canine, attempting to get the animal’s attention. DE 60:83, 107, 108. Degraves instructed R.A. Gutierrez not to distract Guerro from his work, but R.A. Gutierrez whistled at Guerro again. DE 60:109. This aroused Degraves’s suspicion. Degraves proceeded to instruct R.A. Guiterrez that he was to be screened in a different room, grabbed his shoulder, and began leading him to a secondary area to inspect his luggage and person. DE 60:83-86. R.A. Gutierrez cursed and resisted. DE 60:84, 110. Degraves led him to a doorway, which he refused to enter. Appellant took notice and ran after them, yelling to leave his father alone. DE 60:134. Degraves pushed R.A. Gutierrez through the door and, when entering himself, tripped on R.A. Gutierrez’s luggage. R.A. Gutierrez turned around and raised his right hand, in what Degraves believed to be a fist to strike him. DE 60:116-17. In response, Degraves grabbed R.A. Gutierrez by the shirt and pushed him back towards the far wall of the room. DE 60:109. As Degraves reached the far wall, Appellant ran into the room, grabbed Degraves’s head and neck, and pulled him away from R.A. Gutierrez. DE 60:95, 118, 119. R.A. Gutierrez and 3 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 4 of 25 Appellant both testified at trial that Appellant made physical contact with Degraves. DE 60:216; DE 61:36. A brief melee ensued. Appellant and Degraves exchanged several strikes. Seconds later, a cadre of officers rushed Appellant and immobilized him. Degraves, bleeding from the nose and ear, was transported to a hospital for examination and treatment. DE 60:119, 124. Appellant was initially charged by information for forcibly assaulting a federal officer in the performance of his duties under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). A grand jury later issued a superseding indictment, which charged the following: On or about July 16, 2011, in Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, RAFAEL DIDDIER GUTIERREZ, did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, and interfere with “T.D.,” an officer and employee of the United States, designated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1114, that is, an officer with the United States Customs and Border Protection, while “T.D.[”] was engaged in, and on account of the performance of “T.D.’s” official duties, and in the commission of the acts, inflicted bodily injury upon “T.D.,” in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1) and (b). DE 26.
18 U.S.C. § 111(a) provides, in relevant part: (a) In general.—Whoever— (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114[2] of this 2 “[A]ny officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services).” 18 U.S.C. § 1114. 4 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 5 of 25 title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; .... shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) provides: (b) Enhanced penalty.—Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b) establish three levels of forcible assault: (1) simple assault, (2) “all other cases” of forcible assault, namely instances of forcible assault that involve physical contact with the victim of the assault or the intent to commit another felony; and (3) “all other cases” of forcible assault where the defendant uses a deadly or dangerous weapon or inflicts bodily injury. United States v. Martinez, 486 F.3d 1239, 1244-45 (11th Cir. 2007). A “simple assault” is defined as “a willful attempt to inflict injury upon the person of another, or . . . a threat to inflict injury upon the person of another which, when coupled with an apparent present ability, causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.” Martinez, 486 F.3d at 1245 (quoting United States v. Fallen, 256 F.3d 5 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 6 of 25 1082, 1088 (11th Cir. 2001)). A “simple assault” exists only in instances where there is no physical contact. Id. at 1246.
At the charge conference, the parties discussed certain modifications to the Eleventh Circuit’s Pattern Jury Instructions for 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) and (b). 3 The 3 Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 1.2 for forcible assault of a federal officer that results in bodily injury, 18 U.S.C. § 111(b), provides in relevant part: Forcibly Assaulting a Federal Officer: with Use of a Deadly Weapon or Inflicting Bodily Injury 18 USC § 111(b) It’s a Federal crime to forcibly assault a Federal officer [using a deadly or dangerous weapon] [inflicting bodily injury] while the officer is performing official duties. [A Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is a Federal officer and has the official duty to execute arrest warrants issued by a Judge or Magistrate Judge of this Court.] The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the Defendant “forcibly assaulted” the person described in the indictment; (2) the person assaulted was a Federal officer performing an official duty; and (3) the Defendant . . . [inflicted bodily injury] A forcible assault is an intentional threat or attempt to cause serious bodily injury when the ability to do so is apparent and immediate. It includes any intentional display of force that would cause a reasonable person to expect immediate and serious bodily harm or death, regardless of whether the act is carried out or the person is injured. The Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a Federal officer performing an official duty and the Defendant forcibly assaulted the officer. Whether the Defendant knew at the time that the victim was a Federal officer carrying out an official duty does not matter. But you can’t find forcible assault if you believe that the Defendant acted only on a reasonable goodfaith belief that self-defense was necessary to protect against an assault by a 6 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 7 of 25 colloquy began with a discussion of lesser-included offenses.4 The government’s proposed instructions included a lesser-included offense instruction for forcible assault with physical contact but without bodily injury—essentially, the conduct prohibited in 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) without the enhancement enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 111(b). DE 60:239-40. When the District Judge asked defense counsel if he wanted to include that instruction in the charge, defense counsel stated that he did not want that instruction.5 DE 60:246. Instead, defense counsel requested an instruction for “simple assault,” the other lesser-included offense available under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a). DE 60:242. The District Judge, however, concluded that private citizen, and you have a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knew that the victim was a Federal officer. .... [Though a forcible assault requires an intentional threat or attempt to inflict serious bodily injury, the threat or attempt doesn’t have to be carried out and the victim doesn’t have to be injured. But in this case, the indictment alleges that bodily injury actually occurred, so that is the fourth element that the government must prove. A “bodily injury” is any injury to the body, no matter how temporary. It includes any cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement; physical pain; illness; or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.] Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 1.2 (2010); see also United States v. Ettinger, 344 F.3d 1149, 1158 (11th Cir. 2003) (approving earlier version of Pattern Jury Instruction 1.2). 4 A “lesser offense” is an offense whose punishment is lesser in magnitude than the charged offense. “When the elements of such a ‘lesser offense’ are a subset of the elements of the charged offense, the ‘lesser offense’ attains the status of a ‘lesser-included offense.’” Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255, 260 n.2 (2000). 5 Consistent with defense counsel’s wishes, the District Court did not present this lesserincluded offense to the jury. 7 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 8 of 25 Appellant did not qualify for the instruction because it was undisputed that the altercation between Degraves and Appellant involved physical contact. DE 60:246. The government’s proposed instructions also recommended changes to the definition of the offense as enumerated in the Pattern Instructions. Eleventh Circuit Pattern Instruction 1.2 states that the first element of the 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) charge requires the jury to find that the defendant forcibly assaulted the person described in the indictment. See supra note 3. Instead, the government proposed that the jury could find that defendant forcibly assault, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated or interfered with Degraves. Defense counsel did not object to this instruction and the District Judge adopted it. DE 60:240-41. The government also sought to add an element to the pattern instruction: that the defendant acted “intentionally.” The pattern instruction discusses intent in a paragraph defining the meaning of the phrase “forcible assault.” The government requested that paragraph be removed because the jury could find more than just forcible assault. Instead of that paragraph, the government requested adding an additional element, that the jury find that Defendant acted “intentionally.” Defense counsel did not object to this instruction and the District Judge adopted it. DE 60:241. 8 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 9 of 25 The government’s proposed instructions also included a self-defense instruction, which stated that the jury cannot find the defendant guilty if it concluded that the defendant acted only in a reasonable good-faith belief that selfdefense was necessary to protect against an assault by a private citizen, and the jury has a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the victim was a Federal officer. DE 60:241. The self-defense instruction was consistent with the pattern instructions. See supra note 3. Initially, defense counsel indicated that he wanted this defense presented to the jury. DE 60:241. At the end of the charge conference, however, defense counsel expressed hesitation about including it: Defense Counsel: I don’t know if this is complicating matters too much. Just so we don’t get delayed tomorrow, is there any possibility of having a page with [the defense instruction] and a page without it? I’m going to discuss it with my client now. Government: You potentially don’t want a defense in there? Defense Counsel: Right. Government: Well, that would be up to the defense to decide if they want that. Court: Okay. Well, you can let us know tomorrow, and we’ll take care of that. DE 60:247-48. The record indicates that there was no further discussion on the subject of including or excluding the defense instruction. Appellant’s 9 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 10 of 25 counsel confirmed this at oral argument. When the District Judge charged the jury, he did not present the defense instruction. 6 The jury convicted Appellant of violating 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b). The District Judge sentenced him to twenty-one months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. This appeal followed. 6 As to the nature of the offense, the District Judge instructed the jury as follows: Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1) and (b), makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to forcibly, [sic] assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with an officer of the United States of America while the officer was engaged in the performance of his official duties, and in the commission of the acts, inflicts bodily injury upon the officer. The Defendants [sic] can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the Defendant forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated or interfered with Tom Degraves; Second: That the person assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated or interfered with was a Federal officer performing an official duty, Third: That the Defendant acted intentionally, and Fourth: That the Defendant inflicted bodily injury. The Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a Federal officer performing an official duty and that the Defendant forcibly, [sic] assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated or interfered with the officer. Whether the Defendant knew at the time that the victim was a Federal officer carrying out an official duty does not matter. A federal officer is “engaged in the performance of his official duties” if he is acting within the scope of what he is employed to do, rather than engaging in a personal frolic of his own. A “bodily injury” is any injury to the body, no matter how temporary. It includes any cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement; physical pains; illness; or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental facility. DE 47 at 9. 10 Case: 12-13809 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 Page: 11 of 25