Opinion ID: 2982329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intent Under Section 111(a)

Text: Cunningham’s theory at trial was that he never intended to hit Efthemiou with his car and thus was not guilty of the felony provision of section 111(a) because he never intended to touch the officer during the course of the assaultive action. Cunningham’s intent was in question at trial, and as noted above, the victim himself testified that Cunningham did not intend to run him down or injure him with the car. It is not entirely clear from the text of section 111(a) what kind of intent regarding “physical contact” a defendant must have for his crime to constitute a felony rather than a misdemeanor. Section 111(a) in relevant part reads: (a) In General.— Whoever— (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, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) (2012) (emphasis added). When asked at oral argument before this court about the required level of intent concerning “physical contact,” counsel for defendant responded that two previous Sixth Circuit cases3 foreclosed a decision in defendant’s favor here so that “I think the only way to address 3 United States v. Gagnon, 553 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding that section 111(a) uses “‘simple assault’ as a term of art to incorporate” the other acts into the penalty provisions); United States v. Kimes, 246 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding that section 111(a) is a general intent crime, where intent “may be inferred from the doing of the act” and does not require “a showing of ‘bad purpose’” to convict.). -7- Case No. 12-1956 United States v. Cunningham that issue is going to be on en banc.” He declined to argue in favor of the position that other counsel took in the court below and in the appellate brief. In light of defense counsel’s statement and opinion that the two previous Sixth Circuit cases require a decision against his client, unless an en banc decision reverses them, we decline to further consider here the issue of the intent required for “physical contact.”4