快活视频

 

United States v. Acosta-Sierra

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 08-15-2012
  • Case #: 10-50575
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Nelson for the Court; Circuit Judges Gould and Ikuta

The proper standard to apply for a 鈥渃riminal assault charge based on causing the apprehension of imminent bodily injury, under 18 U.S.C. 搂 111, is that of a 鈥渞easonable person who observes what the official observes.鈥

Enrique Acosta-Sierra 鈥渢hrew a baseball-size piece of jagged concrete鈥 at Officer Abram Lopez while crossing the United States-Mexico border. Lopez was unaware that a rock was thrown until it hit a metal gate. While in custody, Acosta-Sierra punched an officer during transit to the courtroom. Acosta-Sierra was convicted, during a bench trial, 鈥渙f two counts of assault on a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 搂 111.鈥 Acosta-Sierra raised four separate issues on appeal, arguing that the district court erred in (1) applying the 鈥渞easonable apprehension of harm prong of common law assault;鈥 (2) failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal; (3) concluding that 18 U.S.C.搂 111 is a general intent crime, precluding a 鈥渄iminished capacity defense;鈥 and (4) precluding evidence of Acosta-Sierra鈥檚 mental health as it relates to a self-defense claim. The Ninth Circuit made several determinations on appeal. First, for purposes of assault under 搂 111, the correct standard to apply is that of a 鈥渞easonable person standing in the official鈥檚 shoes.鈥 The district court erred in concluding that the standard was met 鈥渂ecause [it] did not limit its consideration to the facts known to Officer Lopez.鈥 Second, to sustain a conviction based upon the 鈥渞easonable apprehension of harm鈥 prong of assault, the prosecution must prove 鈥渋ntent to assault.鈥 Third, the 鈥渁ttempted battery prong鈥 of 搂 111 is a general intent crime. Thus, the district court did not err in precluding evidence of 鈥渄iminished mental capacity.鈥 Finally, while mental health evidence in support of self-defense would have explained subjective belief, 鈥渋t would not have supported the proposition that his actions were objectively reasonable,鈥 which is 鈥減articularly important in the penological context.鈥 REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, REMANDED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top