United States v. Rafael Diddier Gutierrez, 745 F.3d 463

Gutierrez and his father were detained after Degraves detected a narcotics signal as they passed a Customs area; a struggle ensued and Degraves was injured requiring hospital treatment.
The superseding indictment charged Gutierrez with forcibly assaulting a federal officer in the performance of duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b).
The district court asked for jury instruction modifications to pattern instructions, including a potential simple-assault lesser offense and an added intentionality element, but defense counsel did not want a simple-assault instruction and later hesitated on self-defense.
The jury convicted Gutierrez on § 111(a)(1) and (b); he was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment with three years of supervised release.
Gutierrez challenged the jury instructions as to (i) omission of a simple-assault instruction, (ii) deviation from pattern forcible-assault definitions, (iii) failure to give a self-defense instruction, and (iv) constructive amendment of the indictment.
The panel reviews the district court’s jury-charge decisions for abuse of discretion and plain error, and assesses evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial comments for plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a simple assault instruction was required	Gutierrez contends a reasonable jury could convict under simple assault.	Gutierrez concedes physical contact, so simple assault not applicable; record shows contact.	No abuse; lack of simple-assault instruction proper.
Whether the forcible assault instruction omitted essential elements	Pattern instruction’s forcible-assault definition was essential given bodily injury and intent elements.	Pattern instruction not mandatory; district court could tailor to facts; no plain error.	Not plain error; charge adequately stated elements.
Whether a self-defense instruction was required	Self-defense could be a valid defense if evidence supported it.	Defense counsel did not request and thus the court need not sua sponte instruct.	No plain error; not required absent defense-request evidence.
Whether the indictment was constructively amended	Charge framed to cover all conjunctive means; risk of broader verdict.	Conviction may rest on any single means; disjunctive framing permitted; no amendment.	No constructive amendment; instruction framed in disjunctive allowed.

Martinez v. United States, 486 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2007) (defines three levels of § 111(a)(1)-(b) and that intent not required for § 111)
Fallen v. United States, 256 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 2001) (willful attempt with present ability can support forcible assault without contact)
Ettinger v. United States, 344 F.3d 1149 (11th Cir. 2003) (pattern-instruction guidance; specific intent not required under § 111)
Carter v. United States, 530 U.S. 255 (2000) (lesser-included offenses when elements are subset of charged offense)
Silverman v. United States, 745 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1984) (district courts have broad discretion in formulating jury charges; avoid confusion)