United States v. Danehy - 680 F.2d 1311 (11th Cir. 1982)

Rule:

A defendant may not be held absolutely liable for assaulting a government officer when the defendant acts from a mistaken belief that he himself is threatened with an intentional tort by a private citizen. Even deadly force, in the proper circumstances, could be employed by the defendant if he could reasonably believe that the intruders were a threat to his person. 

Facts:

The Coast Guard boarded Thomas Danehy’s boat with drawn weapons. Danehy was ordered on deck and after a considerable period arrested. Both sides agree that all the passengers were then taken off Danehy’s boat. Danehy was then convicted of forcibly resisting, opposing, impeding, and interfering with Coast Guardsmen while they were engaged in the performance of their duties under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2, 111, and 1114. 

Issue:

Was Danehy’s conviction proper?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court reversed Danehy’s conviction. The court held that the trial court properly denied Danehy’s request to call witnesses to testify for his reputation for truthfulness because the mere fact that Danehy was contradicted by other evidence did not constitute an attack upon his reputation for truth and veracity. However, the court found that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to offer sua sponte the required jury instructions regarding the required mental state for a conviction under 18 U.S.C.S. § 111. Under § 111, Danehy must either have known the person he was impeding was a federal officer or engaged in conduct towards that individual which constituted a crime even if he were not a federal officer.