10th Cir. Crim. Pattern Jury Instr. 2.09

The defendant is charged in count ————— with a violation

of 18 U.S.C. section 111.

This law makes it a crime to forcibly [assault] [resist] [oppose]

[impede] [intimidate] or [interfere with] a federal officer while the

officer is engaged in the performance of his official duties.

T o fi n d t h e d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f t h i s c r i m e y o u m u s t b e

convinced that the government has proved each of the following

beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: the defendant forcibly [assaulted] [resisted] [opposed]

[impeded] [intimidated] or [interfered with] [the person described

in the indictment];

Second: the person [assaulted] [resisted] [opposed] [impeded]

[intimidated] or [interfered with] was a federal officer who was

then engaged in the performance of his official duty, as charged;

and

Third: the defendant did such act[s] intentionally. [Fourth:

the defendant [made physical contact with the federal officer]

[acted with the intent to commit another felony]]

[Fourth: in doing such acts, the defendant [used a deadly or

dangerous weapon] [inflicted bodily injury]].

Before you can find the defendant guilty you must find,

beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted forcibly. The defendant

acted forcibly if he used force, attempted to use force, or

threatened to presently use force against the federal officer. A

threat to use force at some unspecified time in the future is not

sufficient to establish that the defendant acted forcibly.

The acts proscribed by the offense – assault, resist, oppose,

impede, intimidate, and interfere with – each require an

underlying simple assault. Simple assault means any intentional

attempt or threat to inflict injury upon someone else, when

coupled with an apparent present ability to do so. A finding that

one used force (or attempted or threatened to use it) isn’t the same

as a finding that he attempted or threatened to inflict injury. Thus,

in addition to finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the

defendant ac t e d f or c i b l y , y o u m u s t a l s o fi n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t

intended to inflict or intended to threaten injury.

PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

81

[The term “deadly or dangerous weapon” includes any object

capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury. For such a

weapon to have been “used,” the government must prove that the

defendant not only possessed the weapon, but that the defendant

intentionally displayed it in some manner while forcibly

[assaulting] [resisting] [opposing] [impeding] [intimidating] or

[interfering with] the federal officer. The term “bodily injury”

means an injury that is painful and obvious, or is of a type for

which medical attention ordinarily would be sought.]

You are instructed that a [name agent] is a federal officer, and

that it is a part of the official duty of such an officer to [name duty

performed, e.g., execute arrest warrants issued by a judge or

magistrate of this court].

It is not necessary to show that the defendant knew the

person being forcibly [assaulted] [resisted] [opposed]

[impeded] [intimidated] or [interfered with] was, at that time, a

f e d e r a l o f fi c e r c a r r y i n g o u t a n o f fi c i a l d u t y s o l o n g a s i t i s

established beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was, in fact,

a f e d e r a l o f fi c e r a c t i n g i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s d u t y a n d t h a t t he

defendant intentionally forcibly [assaulted] [resisted] [opposed]

[impeded] [intimidated] or [interfered with] that officer.

[On the other hand, the defendant would not be guilty of

[assaulting] [resisting] [opposing] [impeding] [intimidating] or

[interfering with] an officer if the defendant had no knowledge of

the officer’s identity and reasonably believed he was the subject of

a hostile attack against his person such that he was entitled to use

reasonable force in his defense. The government must establish

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendan t did not act in self

defense.]