Opinion ID: 2982715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: “In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must not ‘weigh the evidence presented, consider the credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury.’” United States v. Farrow, 198 F.3d 179, 186 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Davis, 177 F.3d 552, 558 (6th Cir. 1999)). Rather, “we determine merely whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and after giving the government the benefit of all inferences that could reasonably be drawn from the testimony, a rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Davis, 177 F.3d at 558).
Mtola moved for a judgment of acquittal on Counts 3 and 4 at the close of the Government’s case and again at the close of the evidence. The Government argues that Mtola’s initial Rule 29 motion pertained specifically to the assault charges and that he “failed to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting any of the other means of violating [18 U.S.C. § 111(a)] charged in the indictment, such as resisting the agents, interfering with the agents, impeding the agents in their performance of duties, and the like.” According to the Government, because Mtola moved for an acquittal on the specific issue of assault, he waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as to whether he forcibly resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated or interfered with the agents. We disagree. -8- Case No. 14-3262 United States of America v. Mtola Mtola made a general Rule 29 motion and then discussed the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the assault charge. The district court denied Mtola’s motion and stated that “[t]here is clearly sufficient evidence for the case to go forward on these two counts to be determined by the jury.” The court then briefly summarized the evidence and stated that there is an open issue whether Mtola knowingly “resisted, opposed, impeded, or interfered with these officers.” See United States v. Love, 553 F. App’x 548, 553 (6th Cir. 2014) (concluding that a Rule 29 motion with a general statement followed by specifics, coupled with the court’s finding that there was “sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for the defendant on each of the counts,” is a general Rule 29 motion).
The relevant statutory elements of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) are as follows:
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this 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 . . . . Consequently, “Section 111(a)(1) contains four distinct elements; the government must show that [Mtola]: (1) forcibly (2) assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with (3) a federal officer (4) in the performance of his duties.” United States v. Kimes, 246 F.3d 800, 807 (6th Cir. 2001). “The element of force necessary for a conviction under this statute may be shown by ‘such a threat or display of physical aggression toward the officer as to inspire -9- Case No. 14-3262 United States of America v. Mtola fear of pain, bodily harm, or death.’” United States v. Chambers, 195 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Street, 66 F.3d 969, 977 (8th Cir. 1995)). Mtola claims that the district court erred in denying his Rule 29 motion because the Government presented insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Specifically, he contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that he forcibly resisted Agents Roberts and Pinson. As a threshold matter, during oral argument, Mtola claimed that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction due to inconsistent verdicts. Because the jury found Mtola not guilty of physical contact with Agents Mohr and Pinson, Mtola claims that the jury’s finding that he forcibly resisted the Agents is inconsistent and therefore not supported by the evidence. Even assuming the verdicts are inconsistent, it does not affect the outcome in this case. See United States v. Chilingirian, 280 F.3d 704, 710 (6th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that “[t]he Supreme Court has held that ‘a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count could not attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict of acquittal on another count’” (quoting United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 58 (1984))). As discussed above, Agents Mohr and Pinson spent over ten minutes in the booking room explaining to Mtola what would happen if he refused to comply with the deportation order. Mtola refused to listen and stated that he would not go. Subsequently, Agents Roberts and Pinson asked Mtola to place his hands on top of his head so they could put him in handcuffs. Agent Roberts “approached Mr. Mtola from behind and asked him to place his hands behind his back.” According to Agent Pinson, Mtola “refused and tensed up to where we were not able to put any restraints on him.” Agent Roberts indicated that a struggle ensued as he tried to place Mtola in handcuffs, and Agent Pinson testified that - 10 - Case No. 14-3262 United States of America v. Mtola “Mtola started pushing and shoving us.” Multiple officers helped bring Mtola to the ground. Agent Roberts “secured [Mtola’s] feet so that he couldn’t kick another officer.” Ultimately, it took five to six officers to place Mtola in the restraints.1 Agent Roberts testified that Mtola’s shoes came off during this struggle. Despite the fact that Mtola did not have shoelaces on, this is evidence of forcible resistance. After placing the handcuffs and leg shackles on Mtola, the officers carried him to the transport vehicle because he refused to walk. Once in the vehicle and while lying on his back, Mtola started kicking at the officers, and Agent Roberts testified that Mtola kicked him several times in the forearm. Based on the evidence, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that Mtola acted with forcible resistance toward Agents Roberts and Pinson.