19 A.3d 328
D.C.2011Background
- J.S. was adjudicated delinquent for possessing crack cocaine and for assaulting, resisting, or interfering with a police officer (APO) under D.C. Code § 22-405(b).
- Officers pursued J.S. after recognizing him as a robbery suspect; he fled and resisted handcuffing during capture.
- During the struggle, J.S. allegedly pulled his arm away and was restrained; Special Officer Dunmore used mace to stop the resistance.
- A small Ziploc bag with crack cocaine fell from J.S.’s pocket during pat-down; the cocaine testing was positive.
- J.S. admitted running because he had crack in his pocket but claimed pain prevented voluntary resistance; the court credited his pain yet found APO beyond debate.
- The trial court considered the APO a ‘technical’ offense and relied on its own assessment of voluntary conduct in sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence for the APO conviction? | J.S. argues his actions were not active resistance. | State contends J.S. actively resisted handcuffing. | Yes; evidence supports active resistance and APO conviction. |
| Does APO require specific intent to thwart a police officer? | J.S. contends specific intent to thwart is required. | State argues APO is a general intent offense. | APO remains a general intent crime; no specific intent required. |
| Can pulling away in pain constitute active and oppositional resistance? | J.S. claims pain-induced, involuntary movement cannot be active resistance. | State contends movements amount to active resistance under Coghill framework. | Pulling away in the context of handcuffing constitutes active resistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 976 A.2d 217 (D.C. 2009) (sufficiency review; defer to factfinder)
- In re A.H.B., 491 A.2d 490 (D.C. 1985) (delinquency adjudication sufficiency standard)
- Petway v. United States, 420 A.2d 1211 (D.C. 1980) (elements of APO; general intent framework)
- Coghill v. United States, 982 A.2d 802 (D.C. 2009) (active and oppositional resistance required)
- Dolson v. United States, 948 A.2d 1193 (D.C. 2008) (example of resistance-related conduct )
- Smith v. United States, 593 A.2d 205 (D.C. 1991) (APO has general intent; multiple means no change in intent)
- In re E.D.P., 573 A.2d 1307 (D.C. 1990) (general intent requirement for simple assault and APO)
- Pino v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 225, 370 F.2d 247 (D.C. Cir. 1966) (APO described as general intent crime)
- Williams v. United States, 858 A.2d 984 (D.C. 2004) (discusses specific vs general intent concepts)