Opinion ID: 658348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Forcibly Instruction.

Text: 9 Although there was sufficient evidence to convict, we agree with defendants that their convictions must be reversed because the district court erred in construing the word forcibly in Sec. 111. The court discussed this issue at length during the jury instructions conference, first with defense counsel: 10 MR. MATTHEWS [Counsel for Keith]: In my proposed [instructions] I proposed a definition for the term forcibly assaults and then also forcibly in the next instruction. 11 THE COURT: Is it your position that under the statute the word forcibly describes all of the other acts set forth in the statute, that is, forcibly assaults, forcibly resisted, forcibly opposed, forcibly impeded, forcibly intimidated, forcibly interfered? 12 MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Your Honor, it is. 13 THE COURT: Do you have any authority for that?MR. MATTHEWS: Long v. U.S. [199 F.2d 717 (4th Cir.1952) ]; 14 and then with the prosecutor: 15 THE COURT: ... So tell me why, again, why that word forcibly should follow the definition of assault? 16 MS. RYAN [the prosecutor]: Because that is where the definition of forcibly applies is in the forcible assault. 17 THE COURT: It's your position that the word forcibly is not subsumed to describe the other acts which are included in the statute, correct? 18 MS. RYAN: Yes, Your Honor. 19