Opinion ID: 4123136
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count Five: Habitual Domestic Assault

Text: LaVictor raises an additional argument that because that he is not a current or former spouse, he cannot be convicted under the habitual domestic assault statute. Under the relevant No. 15-1580 United States v. LaVictor Page 33 statute, 18 U.S.C. § 117, in order to convict, a jury must find that a defendant has committed a domestic assault and has a final conviction on at least two separate prior occasions for offenses that would constitute “any assault, sexual abuse, or serious violent felony against a spouse or intimate partner . . . .” The statute defines domestic assault as “an assault committed by a current or former spouse . . . by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim . . . or by a person similarly situated to a spouse.” 18 U.S.C § 117(b). LaVictor stipulated to two prior convictions. However, believing the statute does not apply to him, LaVictor now points to the fact that he is not cohabitating with defendant, nor is he a spouse, and requests that this Court overturn his conviction. As a threshold matter, this argument was not raised below. “Although specificity in a Rule 29 motion is not required, where the defendant makes a Rule 29 motion on specific grounds, all grounds not specified in the motion are waived.” United States v. Chance, 306 F.3d 356, 369 (6th Cir. 2002). In such a circumstance, the burden for prevailing on a sufficiency challenge is even more demanding than usual. See United States v. Guadarrama, 591 F. App’x 347, 351–52 (6th Cir. 2014). Such claims are reviewed under the “manifest-miscarriage-ofjustice standard, and [this Court] will ‘only reverse a conviction if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Carnes, 309 F.3d 950, 956 (6th Cir. 2002)). LaVictor does not meet this burden. Although we have not defined what constitutes an “intimate partner,” a similar domestic assault statute states that a “spouse or intimate partner” includes “a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the abuser, as determined by the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.” 18 U.S.C. § 2266(7)(A)(i)(II); see United States v. St. John, 716 F.3d 491, 493 (8th Cir. 2013) (applying the definition to §117). Reading the plain language of the statute, we see no reason to limit the definition, as LaVictor encourages, to cohabitating partners. Rather, we look to the general nature of their relationship to determine, as the Eighth Circuit has done, whether C.B. and LaVictor constitute intimate partners. LaVictor’s defense counsel informed the jury that LaVictor and C.B. engaged in a lengthy, romantic relationship. C.B. testified that she has known LaVictor for over twenty-three years and has been romantically No. 15-1580 United States v. LaVictor Page 34 involved with him for five. She traveled back and forth from Canada to visit him every weekend. Everyone was aware of their intimate relationship. They had plans to get married. Accordingly, we find that given the frequency of their interactions, the length of the relationship, and its intimate nature, sufficient evidence was presented to the jury in order to convict under § 117.