United States v. Deitron Davis
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18035, 2012 WL 3631163, 690 F.3d 127 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Circumstantial evidence showing a defendant's managerial role, concealment of involvement, and connection to both the origin and destination of a narcotics shipment is sufficient to prove knowledge. A conviction for misdemeanor resisting arrest under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) requires proof of common law "simple assault," which involves a willful attempt or threat to inflict injury, not merely passive or defensive physical resistance to being handcuffed.
Facts:
- On May 2, 2008, Deitron Davis flew from JFK airport in New York to Phoenix, Arizona without luggage, returning on May 6.
- On June 2, 2008, employees at Forward Air shipping company in Ohio discovered 258 kilograms of marijuana in damaged crates sent from Phoenix by "Carl Paplow" and addressed to "Robert Francis" at JFK.
- The DEA was notified, seized the marijuana, and arranged for a controlled delivery of the re-weighted crates.
- On June 3, Davis picked up friends Kieama Hyman and Sherelle, acted evasively, switched cars, and met with a man in a white van before proceeding to the Forward Air facility.
- At the facility, Davis gave Hyman the bill of lading and instructed her to retrieve the shipment, which he claimed contained car rims.
- After Hyman retrieved the shipment and it was loaded into the white van, Davis followed in his car but sped off after noticing he was being followed by DEA agents, abandoning Hyman and Sherelle.
- Later that day, a DEA agent spotted Davis on foot, identified himself, and drew his weapon, at which point Davis fled.
- After a ten-minute chase, agents tackled Davis. While pinned to the ground, Davis placed his hands under his body and struggled against being handcuffed for one to two minutes before being subdued, but did not strike out at or threaten the agents.
Procedural Posture:
- Deitron Davis was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, attempting to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, and misdemeanor resisting arrest.
- A jury convicted Davis on all three counts.
- Davis filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing there was insufficient evidence for both the narcotics knowledge element and the resisting arrest charge.
- The district court denied the motion, entered a judgment of conviction on all counts, and sentenced Davis to 60 months in prison.
- Davis, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's conduct of fleeing from police and physically struggling against being handcuffed, without striking at or threatening officers, constitute "simple assault" sufficient for a misdemeanor conviction for resisting arrest under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - John M. Walker, Jr.
Yes, as to the narcotics charges; No, as to resisting arrest. While the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a jury to infer Davis knowingly participated in a narcotics conspiracy, his actions in resisting being handcuffed did not constitute the "simple assault" required for a misdemeanor conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a). The court affirmed its prior holdings that "simple assault" under this statute carries its common law meaning: either a willful attempt to inflict injury or a threat to inflict injury that causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm. Here, the evidence showed only that Davis fled and then passively or defensively resisted being handcuffed by placing his hands under his body. There was no evidence that he attempted to strike, punch, or otherwise injure the officers, or that his actions would cause them to apprehend immediate harm. Therefore, his conduct did not meet the definition of simple assault, and the conviction on that count could not stand. The court explicitly rejected the broader interpretations of the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, which would include non-assaultive forcible resistance, thereby reaffirming a circuit split on the issue.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the standard for misdemeanor resisting arrest in the Second Circuit, solidifying a circuit split on the meaning of "simple assault" in 18 U.S.C. § 111(a). By strictly adhering to the common law definition, the court establishes that merely passive or defensive resistance, such as struggling against handcuffs without any aggressive action, is not a federal crime in the circuit. This holding creates a higher bar for prosecutors and provides a clearer line for what constitutes criminal resistance, potentially impacting charging decisions in future cases involving non-violent struggles with federal officers. The narcotics holding, while less novel, reinforces that defendants in a managerial or organizing role cannot easily claim ignorance, as a jury can infer knowledge from the totality of their controlling actions.
