Opinion ID: 701341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 23 Finally, Shedlock contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of forcibly assaulting, impeding, resisting or interfering with a Deputy U.S. Marshal. We will affirm a conviction when, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). The government receives the benefit of all reasonable inferences which may logically be drawn from the evidence. United States v. Johnson, 18 F.3d 641, 645 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). 24 Shedlock argues that he did not act forcibly. As previously indicated, this circuit has defined the force necessary to trigger the statute as proof of actual physical contact, or ... proof of such a threat or display of physical aggression toward the officer as to inspire fear of pain, bodily harm, or death. Schrader, 10 F.3d at 1348 (internal citation omitted). Especially when the force alleged does not involve actual physical contact, as here, [w]hether a person has opposed the efforts of federal agents with sufficient force to engage the statute can ... be a troublesome question of degree. United States v. Cunningham, 509 F.2d 961, 963 (D.C.Cir.1975). On balance, however, we find that Shedlock's behavior, including pounding on the car door and aggressively advancing toward Deputy Palmer, satisfies the force requirement of the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 987 (2d Cir.1987) (the defendant removing his jacket, combined with verbal threats, constituted sufficient force). 25 Alternatively, Shedlock argues that, even if he did act forcibly, his actions did not constitute an assault. We need not decide whether an assault itself is adequately supported by the evidence. When considering all of Shedlock's interactions with the deputy, the record contains enough evidence to sustain a conviction for willfully and forcibly impeding or resisting a Deputy United States Marshal. See, e.g., United States v. Henderson, 770 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir.1985) (sustaining a conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 using this logic).