United States v. Wolfname
835 F.3d 1214, 2016 WL 4492465, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15778 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), assault—defined as an attempt or threat to injure—is an essential element that the government must prove for a conviction, regardless of whether the defendant is charged with assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a federal officer.
Facts:
- Blaine Parnell, a police officer with the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, attempted to arrest Jakota Wolfname on outstanding tribal warrants.
- When Parnell ordered Wolfname to put his hands behind his back, Wolfname fled on foot.
- Parnell gave chase, and both men went over a barbwire fence, leading to a physical struggle.
- During the struggle, Wolfname grabbed Parnell's thumb and pulled it toward Parnell's wrist.
- Wolfname testified that he grabbed Parnell's hand only because Parnell had him in a chokehold and he was unable to breathe.
- Parnell testified that he used a headlock, not a chokehold, and that Wolfname grabbed his thumb only after the headlock was released.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Jakota Wolfname for 'knowingly and forcibly assault[ing], resist[ing], and interfer[ing] with' a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b).
- The case was tried before a jury in a U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The jury found Wolfname guilty of resisting and interfering with the officer but wrote 'No' next to the assault option on the verdict form, acquitting him of that charge.
- The jury also found that Wolfname made physical contact but declined to find that he inflicted bodily injury.
- The district court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Wolfname to 24 months in prison.
- Wolfname (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 conviction for forcibly resisting or interfering with a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) require the government to prove the element of assault?
Opinions:
Majority - Moritz, J.
Yes. A conviction under any prong of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) requires the government to prove the element of assault. The court's binding precedent in United States v. Hathaway established that every offense under § 111(a) is defined by the type of assault involved, making assault a necessary element for conviction, whether for resisting, impeding, or assaulting. A subsequent 2008 congressional amendment to the statute did not overrule Hathaway but instead effectively codified its reasoning. The district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on this essential element. Because Wolfname did not object at trial, the conviction is reviewed for plain error. The instructional error was plain under clear circuit precedent, it affected Wolfname's substantial rights because the jury explicitly acquitted him of the assault charge, and it seriously affected the fairness and integrity of the trial.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Tenth Circuit's unique interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 111, cementing the precedent from Hathaway and creating a clear circuit split with other courts that do not require proof of assault for the statute's non-assault prongs. For future cases within the Tenth Circuit, this raises the evidentiary bar for the prosecution, which must now prove an 'attempt or threat to injure' even when only charging a defendant with resisting or impeding an officer. The ruling also underscores the binding power of circuit precedent, demonstrating that the court must follow its own established holdings absent en banc review or an intervening Supreme Court decision, even if other circuits disagree.
