Buchanan v. United States, 32 A.3d 990

After a bench trial, appellant was convicted of simple assault and possession of cocaine and amphetamine stemming from a police arrest.
Lieutenant Wilkins attempted to handcuff appellant during a drug-offense arrest; appellant resisted and moved in ways that could be read as either attempting to escape or striking the officer.
The record showed appellant either pushed/elbowed/struck Wilkins or rolled up and flailed to avoid handcuffs; the government argued mere intent to perform the act could sustain a conviction.
The trial judge sua sponte suggested the act may have been intentional to avoid cuffs, but did not clearly resolve whether there was intent to injure, creating ambiguity about mens rea.
This Court remanded for explicit findings on whether appellant formed the requisite intent to use force against the officer, consistent with Williams v. United States.
The concurrence emphasizes examining whether the circumstances support either an intent-to-frighten or an attempted-battery theory, and reaffirms the remand to clarify mens rea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the evidence prove intent to injure the officer?	Williams requires intent to injure for assault.	General intent to perform the act suffices; no need to prove specific intent to injure.	Remanded to clarify which mens rea applied; conviction may stand if intent to injure is found.
Was the trial court’s finding on intent ambiguous requiring remand?	Judge implicitly found intent to injure or not; ambiguity requires explicit finding.	Judge’s brief explanation supports guilt under either standard; no remand needed.	Remanded for explicit intent findings consistent with Williams and Robinson.
Does simple assault in DC require an intent to injure or only intent to perform the act?	Assault can be proven by intent to perform the act (general intent).	There must be an intent to injure or place victim in apprehension depending on theory.	Court clarifies that both theories exist; remand to determine which theory applies here.

Williams v. United States, 887 A.2d 1000 (D.C. 2005) (remand to determine specific intent to hit the officer)
Parker v. United States, 359 F.2d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (ADW/intent reasoning for 'no need for specific intent' in dangerous-weapon contexts)
Pino v. United States, 370 F.2d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (assault generally a 'general intent' crime)
Robinson v. United States, 506 A.2d 572 (D.C. 1986) (intent to frighten or actual violence standards for assault)
Parks v. United States, 627 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1993) (dual theories of assault (intent-to-frighten and attempted-battery))
Dunn v. United States, 976 A.2d 217 (D.C. 2009) (elements of assault include act with apparent ability to injure and intent)