United States v. Lavelle Watts
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14606
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Watts was convicted by a jury of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) for throwing a 44 lb. chair at a police officer in a federal courtroom after an adverse civil-verdict announcement.
- The incident was videotaped; the chair struck the officer and caused injuries; Watts made post-assault statements admitting the act.
- The judge instructed the jury on § 113(a)(3) (assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm) and also gave a simple-assault (§ 113(a)(5)) instruction; the judge defined “assault” and “dangerous weapon” in the instructions.
- Watts argued the simple-assault instruction was erroneous because the judge’s definition required intent to injure and thus conflated categories of assault/battery; he also challenged the official-victim sentencing enhancement.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the evidence overwhelming as to § 113(a)(3) and that any instructional or evidentiary slips were harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper definition/instruction of “assault” under § 113(a) | Government: jury was correctly instructed that assault may be an attempt/threat and may be completed by touching | Watts: jury instruction required intent to injure and excluded offensive-touching assaults; erroneous definition | Court: instruction sufficient; statute covers common-law battery and assault; instruction captured necessary elements for (a)(3) and was not reversible error |
| Adequacy of definition of “dangerous weapon” | Government: judge’s definition (object capable of great bodily harm) was adequate | Watts: chair is not a weapon in ordinary sense; instruction insufficient | Court: definition adequate; objects not designed as weapons can be dangerous weapons; evidence showed chair was used as weapon |
| Whether simple-assault instruction should have been given / was prejudicial | Watts: requested lesser-included instruction; claims instruction was erroneous/misleading | Government: lesser-included was unnecessary and could mislead jury to compromise verdicts | Court: giving the simple-assault instruction was superfluous and potentially mischievous but harmless because no reasonable jury could acquit on (a)(3) and convict on (a)(5) given the evidence |
| Official-victim sentencing enhancement (U.S.S.G. §3A1.2) | Watts: assault was a personal vendetta; officer’s official status irrelevant | Government: enhancement protects officers performing official duties; assault was motivated by officer’s official actions | Court: enhancement appropriate because attack was in retaliation for officer’s official acts; within guideline application |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stewart, 568 F.2d 501 (6th Cir. 1978) (discusses breadth of battery/offensive touching at common law)
- United States v. Bayes, 210 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2000) (offensive touching can satisfy battery)
- United States v. Williams, 197 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1999) (offensive touching analyses)
- United States v. Vallery, 437 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2006) (discusses intent-to-injure reading of assault)
- United States v. McCullough, 348 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2003) (lesser-included instruction standard)
- United States v. Schoenborn, 4 F.3d 1424 (7th Cir. 1993) (objects not designed as weapons can be used as weapons)
- United States v. Delis, 558 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2009) (examples of offensive-touching offenses)
- United States v. Lewellyn, 481 F.3d 695 (9th Cir. 2007) (offensive touching offense discussion)
- United States v. Whitefeather, 275 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2002) (offensive touching analysis)
- United States v. Williams, 520 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2008) (official-victim enhancement authority)
- United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1999) (official-victim enhancement authority)
A FFIRMED.