Cave v. United States, 75 A.3d 145

Appellant William Cave was charged and convicted by a bench trial of assault on a police officer under D.C. Code § 22-405(b) after an encounter with D.C. Protective Services officers.
Officers ordered Cave out of his parked car; Cave refused. Testimony diverged about subsequent events: officers said Cave struggled and struck them before fleeing into a homeless shelter; Cave and witnesses said he only defended against baton strikes, did not hit officers, and complied inside the shelter.
The trial judge found Cave had refused the officers’ order to exit the vehicle and concluded he “did in fact resist,” but explicitly declined to resolve who struck whom afterward, stating “I’ll never know.”
The government conceded the trial court erred in not addressing all the evidence and asked for a remand for additional factual findings; the government also acknowledged refusing to exit alone cannot support a § 22-405(b) conviction.
The appellate court determined the trial court’s expressed doubt/rejection of the officers’ testimony meant the government failed to prove active resistance beyond a reasonable doubt, and vacated the conviction and ordered entry of judgment of acquittal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether refusal to exit vehicle alone satisfies § 22-405(b) (resistance to officer)	Government: Court could find resistance supporting conviction based on refusal plus subsequent conduct the officers described	Cave: Mere refusal to comply with order to exit car is passive and insufficient under § 22-405(b)	Refusal alone is insufficient; precedent requires active confrontation or obstruction to convict under § 22-405(b)
Whether the trial court’s unresolved credibility finding permits remand for further factual findings	Government: Trial court erred by not addressing all evidence and should be remanded to make additional findings	Cave: Trial court effectively denied the government’s version by saying "I'll never know," reflecting reasonable doubt; no remand appropriate	No remand. Trial judge’s expressed inability to credit officers’ testimony meant reasonable doubt; conviction vacated and judgment of acquittal directed
Whether appellate court may remand for further proceedings after verdict and jeopardy attached	Government: Requested remand under D.C. Code § 17-306 for fuller factual findings	Cave: Remand unnecessary and improper where trial court already made findings reflecting insufficiency of the evidence	Remand denied as unnecessary; appeal resolved by acquittal because facts found did not support conviction

In re C.L.D., 789 A.2d 358 (D.C. 2001) (resistance must be active confrontation or interference to violate § 22-405(b))
Howard v. United States, 966 A.2d 854 (D.C. 2009) (mere passive resistance or noncompliance cannot support conviction under § 22-405(b))
Hill v. United States, 664 A.2d 347 (D.C. 1995) (credibility-based factual findings by trial court are entitled to deference)
United States v. McNeal, 955 F.2d 1067 (6th Cir. 1992) (same—credibility findings are generally not subject to appellate reversal)
Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480 (1958) (remand under appellate authority appropriate only in special circumstances)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (trial courts should address alternative bases for rulings when appropriate)