United States v. Isaac Jacobs
1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13022, 632 F.2d 695 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The commission of an actual battery includes the legal element of assault. Therefore, proof of a completed battery is sufficient to sustain a conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, even if the victim had no apprehension of harm before the injury was inflicted.
Facts:
- Isaac Jacobs and his victim, Earl Bodoh, were involved in a family quarrel over a home.
- In an attempt to evict Bodoh and his family, Jacobs blocked the driveway to the home with his car.
- When Bodoh returned, he drove around the obstacle and proceeded to walk toward the house.
- As Bodoh reached for the door, Jacobs shot him from approximately eight to ten feet away.
- Bodoh was unaware of Jacobs's presence with a gun until after he had been shot and felt the injury.
- After the shooting, Jacobs followed Bodoh into the house and struck him and others with the gun.
- Jacobs claimed at trial that the gun had discharged accidentally.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government indicted Isaac Jacobs in U.S. District Court on one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury and one count of assault with a dangerous weapon.
- Following a trial, a jury found Jacobs guilty on the count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury.
- The jury acquitted Jacobs on the count of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm.
- The defendant, Jacobs, filed a motion for a new trial, which the District Court denied.
- Jacobs, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 the commission of an actual battery satisfy the 'assault' element for the crime of 'assault resulting in serious bodily injury' under 18 U.S.C. § 113(f) when the victim was unaware of the impending harm and thus felt no apprehension before the injury occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Dumbauld, Senior District Judge
Yes. The commission of an actual battery satisfies the 'assault' element of the crime. The court rejected the government's argument that a victim's apprehension of harm occurring after the injury could satisfy the assault element, agreeing with the defendant that an effect cannot precede its cause. However, the court affirmed the conviction based on the established legal principle that an actual battery includes an assault. Since the evidence clearly proved Jacobs committed a battery by shooting Bodoh, that proof was sufficient to support the conviction for the included offense of assault. The court also dismissed the defendant's argument regarding inconsistent verdicts, noting that such verdicts are permissible and that the jury could have rationally found Jacobs intended an assault (to create fear) but lacked the specific intent to cause bodily harm required by the other charge.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the federal crime of assault can be established through two distinct theories: the traditional definition of creating apprehension of harm, or by proving the commission of a battery. This is significant because it prevents defendants from escaping liability for assault in surprise-attack scenarios where the victim has no opportunity to feel fear before the injury. The ruling solidifies the legal doctrine that a completed battery is the ultimate manifestation of an assault, thereby broadening the practical application of assault statutes.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Isaac Jacobs