Ruffin v. United States
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 594
D.C.2013Background
- Ruffin was convicted after a jury trial of misdemeanor APO and two counts of felony threats arising from statements aimed at a MPD vehicle and an officer; burglary acquittal but an extra consecutive 12-month sentence for burglary while on release was imposed.
- Jury also heard that Ruffin warned, while restrained, that he would kick out windows if placed in a patrol car.
- The APO conviction rested on a single act—pulling away when Officer Amaya reached toward his shoulder—found not to be active resistance.
- The federal-style felony threats statute was construed to determine whether threats to damaged DC-owned property fell within its reach.
- Judge imposed a sentence for burglary on release despite the burglary charge being acquitted; appellate review challenged legality of that sentence.
- Court vacates the APO and the DC-vehicle threat convictions and remands to vacate the burglary-on-release sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of APO. | Ruffin—insufficient active resistance. | Government—elbow motion constitutes resistance. | Yes; insufficient evidence showing active resistance. |
| Whether felony threats apply to DC government property. | Statute covers threats to property of any person. | DC is a municipal government; threats to DC property included. | No; statute limits to natural persons and excludes DC-owned property. |
| Whether burglary-on-release sentence was illegal. | Burglary on release charged; jury acquitted on burglary. | Sentence for on-release conduct valid under count 5. | Remand to vacate the burglary-on-release sentence. |
| Whether trial court failed to properly instruct on APO requirements (plain error). | Jury needed proper guidance on ‘resisting’. | Cave supports different interpretation of resisting. | Issue rendered moot by reversal on sufficiency grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.S., 19 A.3d 328 (D.C.2011) (APO requires active, not passive, resistance)
- Coghill v. United States, 982 A.2d 802 (D.C.2009) (flight not active resistance; need limiting instruction in some cases)
- Dolson v. United States, 948 A.2d 1193 (D.C.2008) (interference with officer’s duties)
- Rowland v. California Men’s Colony Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (U.S.1983) (contextual meaning of ‘person’ in statutes)
- Havelock, 664 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir.2012) (dictionary act context limits ‘person’ to natural persons)