United States v. Veach

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
455 F.3d 628 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A criminal statute that punishes an act performed "with intent to" achieve a further consequence is a specific intent crime. For such crimes, a defendant may present a diminished capacity defense, such as voluntary intoxication, to negate the required mens rea.

Facts:

Darwin Veach was involved in an automobile collision within Cumberland Gap National Historic Park.
United States Park Rangers Greg Mullin and Karen Bradford responded to the scene and determined Veach was intoxicated after performing sobriety tests.
While being secured for transport, Veach struggled with Ranger Mullin, causing the officer to fall to one knee and suffer an abrasion.
During the drive to the police station, Veach threatened Ranger Mullin, stating, "God dammit I’ll kill you... and I’m going to cut your head off."
After being taken to a hospital for a facial cut, Veach again threatened to decapitate one of the rangers.
On the way from the hospital to the detention center, Veach threatened both rangers again, saying, "I will put a fuckin’ bullet straight in your fuckin’ head," and that he would find them even 15 years later.

Procedural Posture:

The government charged Darwin Veach in federal district court with one count of resisting a federal officer and two counts of threatening a federal officer.
Prior to trial, the government filed a motion in limine to prevent Veach from presenting a diminished capacity defense based on his voluntary intoxication.
The district court granted the government's motion, excluding the defense.
A jury convicted Veach on all three counts.
At sentencing, the district court determined Veach was a career offender and imposed a prison term of 80 months.
Veach, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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:

Is threatening a federal law enforcement officer under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), which requires an "intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere," a specific intent crime for which a defense of diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication may be presented?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Daughtrey

Yes. Threatening a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) is a specific intent crime, and a defendant must be permitted to present evidence of diminished capacity to negate that specific intent. The court distinguished between general and specific intent crimes, noting that specific intent crimes require the defendant to act with the purpose of violating the law, not merely to intend the act that the law proscribes. Unlike the general intent crime of resisting an officer (§ 111), the plain language of § 115(a)(1)(B) includes the phrase "with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere," which explicitly adds a specific intent element. Because the government must prove the defendant acted with this specific purpose, the trial court erred by preventing Veach from presenting evidence that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite intent.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the critical distinction between general and specific intent crimes based on a close reading of statutory text. It establishes within the Sixth Circuit that the crime of threatening a federal officer under § 115 is a specific intent offense, making the diminished capacity defense available. This ruling provides a clear analytical framework for lower courts: the presence of explicit language like "with intent to..." is a strong indicator of a specific intent crime. The case serves as a key precedent for defendants seeking to introduce evidence of intoxication or other mental impairment to negate a required element of a federal crime.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Veach (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"