In Re JS
2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 221
D.C.2011Background
- J.S. was adjudicated delinquent after a bench trial for possessing crack cocaine and for assaulting, resisting, or interfering with a police officer (APO).
- The APO charge stemmed from J.S.’s conduct while officers attempted to handcuff him during a running confrontation after he fled from them.
- The trial court found J.S. guilty of APO based on his active resistance–moving, slipping, and briefly breaking free from an officer’s grip–before the wrist injury occurred.
- The court determined the APO offense was a “technical offense” and found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- J.S. testified that pain from handcuffing caused him to pull away; the court credited his testimony but concluded it satisfied APO.
- On appeal, J.S. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for APO and the need for specific intent to resist, arguing his actions were involuntary in response to pain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of APO based on active resistance. | J.S. resisted by pulling away and moving, constituting active resistance. | J.S. argues the resistance was not active/oppose-based and was a reflexive response to pain. | Yes; evidence shows active and oppositional conduct consistent with APO. |
| Whether APO requires specific intent to thwart a police officer. | APO might require specific intent to thwart police per C.L.D. language. | APO is a general-intent offense; specific intent not required. | APO does not require specific intent; general intent suffices. |
| Whether the trial court erred by labeling the offense as a ‘technical’ APO. | The court’s characterization should not affect sufficiency. | Discretion to charge APO and its nature is prosecutorial, not reviewable on that basis. | No reversible error based on the court’s characterization; sufficiency stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunn v. United States, 976 A.2d 217 (D.C.2009) (standard for sufficiency; defer to factfinder's credibility)
- In re A.H.B., 491 A.2d 490 (D.C.1985) (delinquency sufficiency review)
- Petway v. United States, 420 A.2d 1211 (D.C.1980) (APO general element standard)
- Coghill v. United States, 982 A.2d 802 (D.C.2009) (active and oppositional resistance required; examples of resisting handcuffing)
- Dolson v. United States, 948 A.2d 1193 (D.C.2008) (escalating conduct and likelihood of violence in APO context)
- Smith v. United States, 593 A.2d 205 (D.C.1991) (APO as a general-intent crime; type of intent does not change with method of assault)
- Williams v. United States, 858 A.2d 984 (D.C.2004) (discussion of specific intent concept in related context)
- In re C.L.D., 739 A.2d 353 (D.C.1999) (test for resistance requires active and oppositional conduct directed at officer)