Opinion ID: 36582
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: To obtain a conviction for assaulting a federal officer, the Government must prove forcible assault or resistance of a federal officer while engaged in the performance of official duties. See United States v. Moore, 997 F.2d 30, 35 n.8 (5th Cir. 1993). The Government need not prove that the defendants intended to injure the officers, but the Government must show that the defendants intended the assault. See United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 684 (1975). As the above stated facts convey, Jason and Jon Dombrowsky intended to assault the federal officers. However, the crux of their argument on appeal is that the officers did not have a right to enter the home or to arrest them, and thus, the 4 Dombrowskys were justified in defending themselves from what the Dombrowskys argue was the officers acting beyond the scope of their authority and with excessive force. An officer is considered to be engaged in his official duties and thus protected by the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 111, if he is performing the functions for which he is employed, if he is acting in good faith and in the colorable performance of his duties, and if he is not on “a frolic of his own.” See United States v. Lopez, 710 F.2d 1071, 1074 (5th Cir. 1983). In this case, there is substantial evidence that the officers were engaged in the performance of their duties. Lieutenant Smith was responding to a domestic violence call from Specialist Peters. Even if this information was insufficient to provide Lieutenant Smith with probable cause to arrest Jon Dombrowsky, a federal officer is protected from assault under 18 U.S.C. § 111, even if he is effecting an arrest without probable cause. Id. at 1074. Furthermore, the Dombrowskys’ claim that the force used by Sergeant Newton in attempting to escort Jason Dombrowsky from the home was excessive also fails. The trial court heard the testimony of both the officers and the Dombrowskys, and the court simply found the officers’ testimony to be more credible. It is not our duty to second-guess the trial court’s determination of credibility. See Ybarra, 70 F.3d at 364. 5 Finally, Jason Dombrowsky argues that there is no evidence that his slap of Sergeant Newton’s hand was forceful or that his pushing of Sergeant Newton was done with the intent to forcibly assault. However, any physical contact by which a person forcibly assaults, resists, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a federal officer in the performance of their duties in punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 111. See United States v. Ramirez, 233 F.3d 318, 322 (5th Cir. 2000). Jason Dombrowsky conceded that he intended to slap and push Sergeant Newton, and there is no assertion that the physical contact was an accident. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to establish that Jason intended to forcibly assault Sergeant Newton.