Opinion ID: 3039321
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Teachings of Leocal

Text: [8] We agree with our sister circuits that the reasoning of Leocal—which merely holds that using force negligently or less is not a crime of violence—extends to crimes involving the reckless use of force. [9] Citing with approval our holding in Trinidad-Aquino that crimes of violence must have a volitional element and so cannot include crimes of negligence, the Leocal Court went a step further: the Court not only endorsed the position that crimes of violence must be volitional but also repeatedly emphasized that such crimes cannot be “accidental.” See Leocal, 543 U.S. at 8-10; see also Lara-Cazares, 408 F.3d at 1221 (rejecting the argument that Leocal adds nothing to Trinidad-Aquino). “Accidental” means “[n]ot having occurred as a result of anyone’s purposeful act.” Black’s Law Dictionary 16 (8th ed. 2004). “Purposeful” means “[d]one with a specific purpose in mind; DELIBERATE.” Id. at 1272. Reckless conduct, as generally defined, is not purposeful. See id. at 1298 (defining recklessness as “[c]onduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but nonetheless foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk” (emphasis added)). Even more clearly, reckless conduct as defined by Arizona law is not purposeful. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-105(9)(c) (defining recklessness as “consciously disregard[ing] a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists,” and providing that “[a] person who creates such a risk but is unaware of such risk solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly” (emphasis added)). Thus, the reckless use of force is “accidental” and crimes of recklessness cannot be crimes of violence. See Oyebanji, 418 F.3d at 264; Tran, 414 F.3d at 470-71. FERNANDEZ-RUIZ v. GONZALES 17869 [10] Contrary to the dissent, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 16, we see no “important differences between negligence and recklessness.” See Dissent Op. at 17890. To the extent recklessness differs from criminal negligence, “[t]he difference between them is that criminal negligence requires only a failure to perceive a risk, as compared to the recklessness requirement of an awareness and conscious disregard of the risk.” In re William G., 963 P.2d 287, 292 n.1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997); accord 1 Charles E. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 27 (15th ed. 1993). But this subjective awareness of possible injury is not the same as the intentional use of physical force against the person of another. Neither gross negligence in failing to perceive, nor conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury implies that physical force is instrumental to carrying out the crime, such as the plain meaning of the word “use” denotes. See Leocal, 543 U.S. at 10 (“The reckless disregard in § 16 relates not to the general conduct or to the possibility that harm will result from a person’s conduct, but to the risk that the use of physical force might be required in committing a crime.”). Therefore, neither recklessness nor gross negligence is a sufficient mens rea to establish that a conviction is for a crime of violence under § 16. As the Court suggested in Leocal—and as illustrated by considering the full range of conduct proscribed by Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1203(A)(1)—any other conclusion would “blur the distinction between the ‘violent’ crimes Congress sought to distinguish for heightened punishment and other crimes.” Leocal, 543 U.S. at 11. Under the language of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1203(A)(1), a wife and mother could be convicted of assault and domestic violence under Arizona law by recklessly running a stop sign and causing a traffic accident that injured her passenger-husband and child. Indeed, a person could be convicted of assault under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1203(A)(1) by running a stop sign “solely by reason of voluntary intoxication” and causing physical injury to another. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1317870 FERNANDEZ-RUIZ v. GONZALES 105(9)(c). Such conduct cannot, in the ordinary sense, be called “active” or “violent.” Leocal, 543 U.S. at 11.10 10 The dissent calls the above hypotheticals “absurd.” Dissent Op. at 17885. However, our example of running a stop sign is similar to actual cases where a defendant has been convicted of aggravated assault. See State v. Miles, 123 P.3d 669, 671 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005) (sustaining conviction for aggravated assault under Arizona Revised Statutes § 131204(A)(1)—which requires a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § 131203—of a man who ran a stop sign and caused an accident that injured his passenger); State v. Freeland, 863 P.2d 263, 265-66 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) (affirming aggravated assault conviction “prosecuted on the theory that defendant, by driving while intoxicated and causing a collision, recklessly caused serious injury to his victim”). Moreover, the dissent fails to cite us to, nor are we aware of, any authority suggesting that Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1203(A)(1) cannot reach the conduct described in our hypothetical examples. Accordingly, our categorical analysis must address such conduct. The dissent leads its argument with the trenchant phrase “[m]en do not beat their wives by accident.” Dissent Op. at 17879. True. But the terms of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3601(A) do not require, and the judicially noticeable documents in the record do not prove, that FernandezRuiz beat his wife. Rather, whether our record shows a conviction under such a statute requires a beating, and whether the documents of conviction show a beating took place, are the precise issues before us. Instead of looking to the record, the dissent would infer that wife-beating took place from the “trust and related vulnerability that characterize domestic relationships.” Dissent Op. at 17883. The dissent does not explain how, within the confines of Taylor, the perpetrator’s mere domestic relationship to the victim proves that he intentionally used force against her. The statute’s title is not enough. See Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d at 1146 (“We look solely to the statutory definition of the crime, not to the name given to the offense or to the underlying circumstances of the predicate conviction.”) (emphasis added). Further, it is a commonplace of the criminal law that the confidential relationship that exists between the perpetrator and the victim cannot supply the proof of the requisite element of the mens rea with which an act was done. Were a husband to take his wife’s car without her consent, the “trust and vulnerability” of the wife would not automatically supply the proof of the husband’s intent permanently to deprive her of possession of the car, so as to convert misdemeanor joy-riding into felony car theft. FERNANDEZ-RUIZ v. GONZALES 17871 Finally, because the text of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) is sufficiently clear, we see no need in this case to employ legislative history as an interpretive aid. See, e.g., United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 719 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We need not factor in legislative history because the meaning of the statute is clear from the text.”). The requirement that the offense have “as an element, the use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (emphasis added), implies the use of force must be a means to an end.11 11 The dissent relies on the Senate Judiciary Committee Report accompanying the enactment of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. See Dissent Op. at 17891 (citing S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 307 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3486-87). This report cites “battery” as an example of a crime of violence within the meaning of § 16(a). See S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 307 & n.12. Since battery as defined by the Model Penal Code may be accomplished through recklessness, the dissent asserts that Congress intended § 16 to include reckless conduct. See Dissent Op. at 17892. Since the statutory language is clear, we need not look to a report issued by one chamber of Congress as evidence of the statute’s meaning. See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 267 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“[I]t is not only . . . improper but also quite unnecessary to seek repeated support in the words of a Senate Committee Report —which, as far as we know, not even the full committee, much less the full Senate, much much less the House, and much much much less the President who signed the bill, agreed with.”). Even if we do consider the legislative history, it is far from clear that Congress intended § 16(a) to reach reckless conduct. The Senate Report cites 18 U.S.C. § 113(d) (1976) in a footnote to the term “battery.” See S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 307 n.12. Presumably, the Committee had § 113(d) in mind when it referred to battery. Yet, at least at the time of § 16’s enactment, § 113(d) was a “general intent” crime. See United States v. Knife, 592 F.2d 472, 481-82 & n.12 (8th Cir. 1979) (“The element of intent in § 113(f)”—defined as an assault under § 113(d) that results in serious bodily injury—“is satisfied if the general intent to commit the acts of assault arose when [defendant] initially approached [the victim].”); United States v. Martin, 536 F.2d 535, 535-36 (2d Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (finding the mental element of § 113(d) to be adequately proven where “the magistrate found an intent to strike and to scuffle”). Both these cases involve facts showing an intent to strike the victim, not merely the creation of such risk. We therefore doubt that “general intent” under § 113(d) includes reckless 17872 FERNANDEZ-RUIZ v. GONZALES [11] For these reasons, we hold that the offense underlying Fernandez-Ruiz’s 2003 misdemeanor domestic violence conviction was not a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) or, by extension, a categorical crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The bedrock principle of Leocal is that to constitute a federal crime of violence an offense must involve the intentional use of force against the person or property of another. In light of Leocal, we expressly overrule our cases holding that crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 may include offenses committed through the reckless, or grossly negligent, use of force. IV. Crime of Domestic Violence: Modified Categorical