United States v. Voisine, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Voisine, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/98

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 12- 121312- 1216

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

STEPHEN L. VOI SI NE; WI LLI AM E. ARMSTRONG I I I ,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. J ohn A. Woodcock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a and Stahl , Ci r cui t J udges.

Vi rgi ni a G. Vi l l a, Assi st ant Feder al Def ender , Feder alDef ender Of f i ce, f or appel l ant s.

Rene M. Bunker , Ass i st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomThomas E. Del ahant y I I , Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

J anuar y 30, 2015


2/98

LYNCH, Chief Judge. The Supr eme Cour t has di r ect ed us,

i n l i ght of Uni t ed St at es v. Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405 ( 2014) , t o

consi der agai n our deci si on i n t hese t wo cases t hat bot h def endant s

had i ndeed been convi ct ed under st ate l aw of "mi sdemeanor cr i mes of

domest i c vi ol ence, " as def i ned i n 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) , even

t hough t he st ate st at ut es al l owed convi ct i on based on a

r eckl essness mens r ea. Ar mst r ong v. Uni t ed St at es, 134 S. Ct . 1759

( 2014) ( Mem. ) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Voi si ne, 495 F. App' x 101 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)

( per cur i am) . I f so, t hen t hei r mot i ons to di smi ss thei r f eder al

char ges f or possessi ng f i r ear ms af t er such convi ct i ons, i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) , wer e pr oper l y deni ed.

Our answer i s i nf or med by congr essi onal r ecogni t i on i n

922( g) ( 9) of t he speci al r i sks posed by f i r ear m possessi on by

domest i c abusers. "Domest i c vi ol ence of t en escal at es i n sever i t y

over t i me . . . and t he pr esence of a f i r ear m i ncr eases t he

l i kel i hood t hat i t wi l l escal at e t o homi ci de . . . . " Cast l eman,

134 S. Ct . at 1408. I t i s al so i nf or med by t he congr essi onal

choi ce i n t he f ederal sent enci ng scheme t o honor each st at e' s

choi ce as t o how t o def i ne i t s own cr i mes, t hr ough st at ut or y t ext

and j udi ci al deci si on.

As we see i t , t hi s case t ur ns on t he uni que nat ur e of

922( g) ( 9) . That sect i on i s meant t o ensur e t hat i ndi vi dual s who

engage i n t he "seemi ngl y mi nor act [ s] " t hat act ual l y const i t ut e

-2-


3/98

domest i c vi ol ence, l i ke squeezi ng and shovi ng, may not possess a

f i r ear m. Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1412. Thi s r ange of pr edi cat e

act s i s br oader t han t hat f ound i n ot her f eder al pr ohi bi t i ons

i nvol vi ng t he use of physi cal f or ce. Appl yi ng t he t eachi ngs of

Cast l eman, we f i nd t hat Mai ne' s def i ni t i on of r eckl ess assaul t f i t s

wi t hi n 922( g) ( 9) .

We af f i r m t he deni al of t he mot i on t o di smi ss t he

i ndi ct ment and i nf or mat i on her e. That means t he condi t i onal gui l t y

pl eas t he def endant s ent er ed ar e val i d and t hei r sent ences s t and.

The quest i on i s cl ose and we r ul e nar r owl y.

I .

A. St at ut or y Backgr ound

As t he Supr eme Cour t obser ved i n Cast l eman, 18 U. S. C.

922( g) ( 9) was enact ed t o cl ose a l oophol e. "Whi l e f el ons had

l ong been bar r ed f r om possessi ng guns, many perpet r ators of

domest i c vi ol ence ar e convi ct ed onl y of mi sdemeanor s. " Cast l eman,

134 S. Ct . at 1409. No ban pr event ed t hose domest i c abuser s f r om

possessi ng f i r ear ms, yet t her e i s a "sober i ng" connect i on bet ween

domest i c vi ol ence and homi ci de. I d. The "mani f est pur pose" of

922( g) ( 9) , t he Laut enberg Amendment t o t he Gun Cont r ol Act of

1968, was t o r emedy the "potent i al l y deadl y combi nat i on" of

" [ f ] i r ear ms and domest i c st r i f e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Hayes, 555 U. S.

415, 426- 27 ( 2009) .

-3-


4/98

Under 922( g) ( 9) , i t i s agai nst f eder al l aw f or any

per son "who has been convi ct ed i n any cour t of a mi sdemeanor cr i me

of domest i c vi ol ence" t o "possess i n or af f ect i ng commer ce[ ] any

f i rearm or ammuni t i on. " I n t ur n, a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence" i s def i ned i n 921( a) ( 33) ( A) as an of f ense t hat ( 1) i s

a mi sdemeanor under f eder al , st at e, or t r i bal l aw, and ( 2) "has, as

an el ement , t he use or at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce . . .

commi t t ed by a cur r ent or f or mer spouse, par ent , or guar di an of t he

vi ct i m" or by a per son i n a si mi l ar domest i c r el at i onshi p wi t h t he

vi ct i m.

The predi cat e of f enses

i n t hese cases are convi ct i ons

under Mai ne assaul t st at ut es. Me. Rev. St at . Ann. t i t . 17- A,

207( 1) ( A) , 207- A( 1) ( A) . Under Mai ne l aw, a "per son i s gui l t y of

assaul t i f [ t ] he per son i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y or r eckl essl y

causes bodi l y i nj ur y or of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o anot her

per son. " I d. 207( 1) ( A) . A vi ol at i on of 207 const i t ut es

mi sdemeanor domest i c vi ol ence assaul t i f t he "vi ct i mi s a f ami l y or

househol d member. " I d. 207- A( 1) ( A) .

Mai ne l aw expl ai ns t hat "[ a] per son act s r eckl essl y wi t h

r espect t o a r esul t of t he per son' s conduct when t he per son

consci ousl y di sr egar ds a r i sk t hat t he per son' s conduct wi l l cause

such a r esul t . " I d. 35( 3) ( A) . The st at ut e goes on t o gi ve mor e

meat t o t he "consci ous di sr egar d" def i ni t i on. I t r ef er s t o

di sr egar d of a r i sk, "when vi ewed i n l i ght of t he nat ur e and

-4-


5/98

pur pose of t he person' s conduct and the ci r cumst ances known to t hat

per son, " t hat "i nvol ve[ s] a gr oss devi at i on f r om t he st andar d of

conduct t hat a reasonabl e and pr udent person woul d obser ve i n the

same si t uat i on. " I d. 35( 3) ( C) .

B. Fact s

Wi l l i am E. Ar mst r ong I I I was convi ct ed i n 2002 and 2008

of assaul t i ng hi s wi f e i n vi ol at i on of Mai ne' s mi sdemeanor assaul t

st at ut es, Me. Rev. St at . Ann. t i t . 17- A 207( 1) ( A) , 207- A( 1) ( A) .

I n May 2010, t went y- ni ne mont hs af t er t he l ast domest i c assaul t

convi ct i on, t he Mai ne St at e Pol i ce sear ched the Ar mst r ong resi dence

f or dr ug par apher nal i a and mar i j uana. They di scover ed si x f i r ear ms

and ammuni t i on. The pol i ce not i f i ed t he f eder al Bur eau of Al cohol ,

Tobacco, Fi r earms, and Expl osi ves ( ATF) , whi ch execut ed a search.

That search uncover ed onl y ammuni t i on, but Ar mst r ong l at er

expl ai ned that he had ar r anged f or a f r i end to remove t he guns.

ATF agent s obser ved t he guns at t he f r i end' s home.

Ar mst r ong was ar r est ed and f ederal l y charged wi t h bei ng

a pr ohi bi t ed per son i n possessi on of a f i r ear m, i n vi ol at i on of

922( g) ( 9) . The i ndi ct ment l i st ed Ar mst r ong' s 2008 domest i c

vi ol ence assaul t convi ct i on as t he pr edi cat e of f ense.

St ephen L. Voi si ne was convi ct ed i n 2003 and 2005 of

assaul t i ng a woman wi t h whomhe was i n a domest i c r el at i onshi p, i n

vi ol at i on of Mai ne' s assaul t st at ut e. I n 2009, act i ng on an

-5-


6/98

anonymous t i p, st at e and l ocal l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s ar r est ed

Voi si ne on t he f eder al mi sdemeanor char ge of ki l l i ng a bal d eagl e

i n vi ol at i on of 16 U. S. C. 668( a) . When conduct i ng a backgr ound

check, t hey di scover ed hi s 2003 mi sdemeanor si mpl e assaul t . As

Voi si ne had t ur ned a r i f l e over t o t he pol i ce dur i ng t he

i nvest i gat i on, t he cr i mi nal i nf or mat i on char ged hi mwi t h vi ol at i ng

922( g) ( 9) as wel l as 668( a) .

C. Pr ocedur al Hi st or y

Both Ar mst r ong and Voi si ne moved t o di smi ss , argui ng that

t hei r i ndi ct ment and i nf or mat i on di d not char ge a f eder al of f ense

and t hat 922( g) ( 9) vi ol at ed t he Const i t ut i on. The di st r i ct cour t

deni ed the mot i ons, and bot h def endant s ent er ed gui l t y pl eas

condi t i oned on t he r i ght t o appeal t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on. 1

We consol i dat ed Ar mst r ong and Voi si ne' s cases. I n a

J anuar y 18, 2013 opi ni on, we af f i r med t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

deci si ons. Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d at 1; see Voi si ne, 495 F. App' x. at

102 ( i ncor por at i ng t he r easoni ng f r om Ar mst r ong as t here were "no

per t i nent f act ual di f f er ences" di st i ngui shi ng t he t wo cases) . The

def endant s had argued t hat a mi sdemeanor assaul t on t he basi s of

1 I n Febr uary 2012, Ar mst r ong was sentenced t o thr ee years ofpr obat i on and a f i ne and speci al assessment t ot al i ng $2, 600. Al soi n Febr uar y 2012, Voi si ne was sentenced t o a year and a dayi mpr i sonment on t he 922( g) ( 9) charge wi t h t wo years supervi sedr el ease, concur r ent wi t h ni ne mont hs i mpr i sonment and one yearsuper vi sed r el ease on t he 668( a) char ge, and $125 i n speci alassessment s.

-6-


7/98

of f ensi ve physi cal cont act , as opposed t o one causi ng bodi l y

i nj ur y, i s not a "use of physi cal f or ce, " and, concor dant l y, not a

"mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. " Rel yi ng on Uni t ed St at es

v. Booker , 644 F. 3d 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , and Uni t ed St at es v. Nason,

269 F. 3d 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) , we hel d t hat 922( g) ( 9) di d not

di st i ngui sh bet ween vi ol ent and nonvi ol ent convi ct i ons, and t he

st at ut e i ncl uded t he of f ensi ve physi cal cont act por t i on of t he

Mai ne st at ut e wi t hi n i t s def i ni t i on of "physi cal f or ce. "

Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d at 6; Voi si ne, 495 F. App' x at 101- 02.

Second, t he def endant s ar gued t hat 922( g) ( 9) vi ol at ed

t he Second Amendment as appl i ed t o t hem. Thi s ar gument was

f orecl osed by Booker , whi ch deni ed an i dent i cal argument f r amed as

a f aci al chal l enge. 644 F. 3d at 22- 26; see Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d at

7- 8; Voi si ne, 495 F. App' x. at 101.

The def endant s pet i t i oned f or cer t i or ar i . On Mar ch 31,

2014, t he Supr eme Cour t gr ant ed t hei r pet i t i ons, vacat ed t he

j udgment s, and r emanded " f or f ur t her consi der at i on i n l i ght of

Uni t ed St at es v. Cast l eman. " Ar mst r ong v. Uni t ed St at es, 134 S.

Ct . 1759 ( 2014) ( Mem. ) . I n Cast l eman, t he Cour t had addr essed t he

i ssue of whet her t he phr ase "use of physi cal f or ce" i n

921( a) ( 33) ( A) r equi r ed vi ol ence or coul d be sat i sf i ed by

of f ensi ve t ouchi ng. That i ssue had been t he sour ce of a ci r cui t

spl i t . Cast l eman r esol ved t he quest i on i n agr eement wi t h Nason,

hol di ng that "Congr ess i ncor porated t he common- l aw meani ng of

-7-


8/98

' f or ce' - - namel y, of f ensi ve t ouchi ng - - i n 921( a) ( 33) ( A) ' s

def i ni t i on of a ' mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. ' "

Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1410. The Supr eme Cour t l ef t open

whet her a convi ct i on wi t h t he mens r ea of r eckl essness coul d serve

as a 922( g) ( 9) predi cat e. I d. at 1414. I n f oot not e 8, t he Cour t

st at ed, " t he Cour t s of Appeal s have al most uni f or ml y hel d t hat

r eckl essness i s not suf f i ci ent , " and l i st ed t en cases. 2 I d. at

1414 n. 8. I t t hen added, "But see Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 644

F. 3d 12, 19- 20 ( C. A. 1 2011) . " I d. The f oot not e di d not say Booker

was wr ong. I t gave no f ur t her def i ni t i on of r eckl essness. Nor di d

i t account f or t he di f f er ences i n t he st at ut or y sect i ons bei ng

i nt er pr et ed i n t he ot her cases ci t ed.

Thi s case comes t o us f ol l owi ng t he Supreme Cour t ' s

r emand.

I I .

I n const r ui ng 922( g) ( 9) ' s appl i cabi l i t y t o a gi ven

case, we use t he "cat egor i cal appr oach. " Under t hat appr oach t he

2 Uni t ed St ates v. Pal omi no Garci a, 606 F. 3d 1317, 133536( 11t h Ci r . 2010) ; J i menezGonzal ez v. Mukasey, 548 F. 3d 557, 560( 7t h Ci r . 2008) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Zuni gaSot o, 527 F. 3d 1110, 1124( 10t h Ci r . 2008) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r esVi l l al obos, 487 F. 3d 607,

61516 ( 8t h Ci r . 2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Por t el a, 469 F. 3d 496, 499( 6t h Ci r . 2006) ; Fer nandezRui z v. Gonzal es, 466 F. 3d 1121, 112732( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( en banc) ; Gar ci a v. Gonzal es, 455 F. 3d 465, 46869( 4t h Ci r . 2006) ; Oyebanj i v. Gonzal es, 418 F. 3d 260, 26365 ( 3dCi r . 2005) ( Al i t o, J . ) ; J obson v. Ashcrof t , 326 F. 3d 367, 373 ( 2dCi r . 2003) ; Uni t ed St at es v. ChapaGar za, 243 F. 3d 921, 926 ( 5t hCi r . 2001) .

-8-


9/98

el ement s of t he pr edi cat e of f ense ( her e, t he Mai ne assaul t st at ut e)

must be i dent i cal t o or cat egor i cal l y wi t hi n t he descr i pt i on of t he

subsequent provi si on ( her e, 922( g) ( 9) ) . See Cast l eman, 134 S.

Ct . at 1413. Wher e, as her e, t he pr edi cat e st at ut e i s "di vi si bl e"

i nt o cr i mes wi t h al t er nat i ve set s of el ement s, we may consi der

whether t he el ement s under whi ch t he def endant was convi ct ed are

st i l l wi t hi n t he subsequent pr ovi si on, an i nqui r y known as t he

"modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. " I d. at 1414. The gover nment

concedes t hat t he recor d her e of t he st at e pr oceedi ngs i s t oo

spar se t o "di scer n under whi ch pr ong of Mai ne' s st at ut e" t he

def endant s wer e convi ct ed, and t hey ur ge us agai nst " r esort [ i ng] t o

t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. " For us t o af f i r m, we must f i nd

t hat t he Mai ne st at ut e - - i ncl udi ng t he r eckl ess act s i t pr ohi bi t s

- - cat egor i cal l y f i t s wi t hi n 922( g) ( 9) .

The def endant s f r ame t he i ssue as whet her a r eckl ess act

can const i t ut e a "use of physi cal f or ce" and r el y on cases

i nt er pr et i ng st at ut es ot her t han 922( g) ( 9) . We do not agr ee t hat

i s t he pr oper way t o f r ame t he quest i on. That f r ami ng i s

pr edi cat ed on t he not i on t hat par t i cul ar st at ut or y l anguage must be

i nt er pr et ed i dent i cal l y i n di f f er ent sect i ons across t he U. S. Code.

To t he cont r ar y, cont ext mat t er s, as t he Supreme Cour t demonst r at ed

i n Cast l eman i t sel f . 134 S. Ct . at 1410- 12. The quest i on i s

whet her Mai ne' s def i ni t i on of r eckl essness f i t s wi t hi n

921( a) ( 33) ( A) ' s phr ase "use of physi cal f or ce. "

-9-


10/98

Sect i on 921( a) ( 33) ( A) i s a pr ovi si on cr af t ed i n t he uni que cont ext

of domest i c vi ol ence, and i t shoul d be so i nt er pr et ed. Cast l eman,

134 S. Ct . at 1410- 12 & n. 4; Booker , 644 F. 3d at 18- 21.

Thi s r ef r ami ng of t he quest i on cl ar i f i es our approach t o

t he t wo ar gument s r ai sed by the def endant s: t hat Cast l eman f oot note

8 deci des t hi s case, and t hat Cast l eman' s anal ysi s of

921( a) ( 33) ( A) under mi nes our pr i or deci si ons. Cast l eman' s

emphasi s on cont ext r ei nf or ces, r at her t han under mi nes, our ear l i er

deci si on.

A. Cast l eman Foot note 8

The def endant s r ead t oo much i nto Cast l eman f ootnote 8,

whi ch expr essl y does not r esol ve t he quest i on bef or e us. Nor i s

t hei r ar gument made by r ef er ence t o t he cases ci t ed f or cont r ast i n

-10-


11/98

t he f oot not e. Each of t hose cases3 const r ues a di f f er ent st at ut or y

def i ni t i on, and al l but one ar ose i n a di f f er ent cont ext .

3

Al l but one of t he t en cases ci t ed i n Cast l eman f oot not e 8as deci di ng t he 922( g) ( 9) mens r ea i ssue i n f act consi der ed ot herst at ut es i n ot her cont exts and f ol l owed t he r easoni ng of Leocal v.Ashcr of t , 543 U. S. 1, 13 ( 2004) . Si x cases anal yzed 18 U. S. C. 16. I n Oyebanj i v. Gonzal es, 418 F. 3d 260, 263- 65 ( 3d Ci r . 2005)( Al i t o, J . ) , t he Thi r d Ci r cui t r ead Leocal t o appl y t o 16( b) ,whi ch of f er ed an al t er nat i ve def i ni t i on of "cr i me of vi ol ence" t o 16( a) , and deci ded t hat r eckl ess cr i mes cannot be cr i mes ofvi ol ence under t hat sect i on. Thr ee ot her cases f r om t he f oot not edi d t he same. See Garci a v. Gonzal es, 455 F. 3d 465, 467- 69 ( 4t hCi r . 2006) ( i nt er pr et i ng 16( b) , as r ef er enced i n an i mmi gr at i onst at ut e) ; J i menez- Gonzal ez v. Mukasey, 548 F. 3d 557, 559- 62 ( 7t h

Ci r . 2008) ( same) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es- Vi l l al obos, 487 F. 3d607, 614- 17 ( 8t h Ci r . 2007) ( same) . Two more i nt erpr eted t he samepr ovi si on, but wi t hout r el yi ng on Leocal , whi ch had yet t o bedeci ded. See J obson v. Ashcrof t , 326 F. 3d 367, 373- 74 ( 2d Ci r .2003) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Chapa- Gar za, 243 F. 3d 921, 926- 27 ( 5t h Ci r .2001) . Al l of t hese cases i nt er pr et ed t he t er m" cr i me of vi ol ence"as par t of an aggr avat ed f el ony st at ut e, and Cast l eman i s cl eart hat t he i nt er pr et i ve r ul es gover ni ng f el oni es do not appl y t omi sdemeanor cr i mes of domest i c vi ol ence. 134 S. Ct . at 1411.

Three of t he r emai ni ng f our cases i nt er pret ed t he t er m"use ofphysi cal f or ce" i n t he cont ext of a Sent enci ng Gui del i nes pr ovi si oni mposi ng an enhancement f or def endant s who were depor t ed af t er

commi t t i ng a f el ony "cr i me of vi ol ence, " U. S. Sent enci ng Gui del i nesManual 2L1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A) . Each of t hose cases anal yzed t hepr ovi si on by anal ogi zi ng t o 16 and appl yi ng Leocal . For exampl e,i n Uni t ed St at es v. Pal omi no Gar ci a, t he El event h Ci r cui t expl ai nedt hat bot h 16 and t he Gui del i nes provi si on def i ne the phr ase"cr i me of vi ol ence, " and t hey ar e "al most i dent i cal l y wor ded. " 606F. 3d 1317, 1335 ( 11t h Ci r . 2010) . I t t hen ci t ed Leocal and t heother 16 cases ment i oned above t o concl ude that a "use ofphysi cal f or ce" cannot be r eckl ess. I d. at 1335- 36; see al soUni t ed St at es v. Por t el a, 469 F. 3d 496, 498- 99 ( 6t h Ci r . 2006) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Zuni ga- Sot o, 527 F. 3d 1110, 1124 ( 10t h Ci r . 2008) .

Even i f 16 wer e anal ogous t o 922( g) ( 9) , t hat woul d not

r esol ve t he mat t er . The Thi r d Ci r cui t has expl ai ned t hat somer eckl ess convi ct i ons can ser ve as pr edi cat es f or 16 of f enses,dependi ng on t he nat ur e of t he r eckl essness. Agui l ar v. At t ' yGen. , 663 F. 3d 692, 698- 700 ( 3d Ci r . 2011) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v.Espi noza, 733 F. 3d 568, 572- 74 ( 5t h Ci r . 2013) ( al l owi ng a r eckl essconvi ct i on t o be a pr edi cat e f or a vi ol ent f el ony under t he Ar medCar eer Cr i mi nal Act ) .

-11-


12/98

Footnote 8 begi ns by descr i bi ng t he i ssue as an open

quest i on, wi t h a ci t at i on t o Leocal v. Ashcrof t , 543 U. S. 1, 13

( 2004) . I n Leocal , t he Supr eme Cour t i nt er pr et ed 18 U. S. C.

16( a) , t he def i ni t i on of t he t er m"cr i me of vi ol ence. " 543 U. S.

at 8- 10. Such a cr i me r equi r es "use of physi cal f or ce, " and Leocal

hel d t hat t he t er m "use" suggest s a mens r ea hi gher t han

negl i gence, but i t wi t hhel d j udgment on whet her r eckl essness i s

suf f i ci ent , Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1414 n. 8; Booker , 644 F. 3d at

19- 20.

Consi der i ng cont ext , sect i on 16( a) i s not anal ogous t o

t he sect i on whi ch concer ns us, 922( g) ( 9) . Cast l eman i t sel f

di st i ngui shed t he t er m"use of f or ce" i n 16( a) , a pr ovi si on f or

undi f f er ent i at ed vi ol ent cri mes, f r om the term "use of physi cal

f or ce" i n 922( g) ( 9) ' s domest i c vi ol ence pr ovi si on. "Domest i c

vi ol ence" i s a " t er m of ar t " t hat "encompasses a r ange of f or ce

br oader t han t hat whi ch const i t ut es ' vi ol ence' si mpl i ci t er , "

i ncl udi ng "act s t hat mi ght not const i t ut e ' vi ol ence' i n a

nondomest i c cont ext . " Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1411 & n. 4. A

"cr i me of vi ol ence, " by cont r ast , "suggest s a cat egor y of vi ol ent ,

act i ve cr i mes. " I d. at 1411 n. 4 ( quot i ng Leocal , 559 U. S. at 140)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . As t he Supr eme Cour t expl ai ned,

a " ' squeeze of t he ar m [ t hat ] causes a br ui se' " i s "har d t o

descr i be as . . . ' vi ol ence' " wi t hi n t he meani ng of 16, but "easy

t o descr i be as ' domest i c vi ol ence' " wi t hi n t he meani ng of

-12-


13/98

922( g) ( 9) . I d. at 1412 ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng Fl or es

v. Ashcrof t , 350 F. 3d 666, 670 ( 7t h Ci r . 2003) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

Unsur pr i si ngl y, t he dr af t i ng hi st or y of 922( g) ( 9)

i ndi cat es t hat "Congr ess expr essl y rej ect ed" t he 16( a)

def i ni t i on, i nst ead devel opi ng the t er m "mi sdemeanor cr i me of

vi ol ence" t hat was " ' pr obabl y br oader ' t han t he def i ni t i on" i n

16. Booker , 644 F. 3d at 19 ( ci t i ng a st at ement by Sen.

Laut enber g) . And where Congr ess want ed t o def i ne a domest i c

vi ol ence cr i me as a 16 cr i me of vi ol ence occur r i ng i n t he

domest i c cont ext , i t has done so - - even i n t he same l egi sl at i on

t hat cont ai ned t he Laut enberg Amendment . See, e. g. , 8 U. S. C.

1227( a) ( 2) ( E) . "That i t di d not do so her e suggest s, i f

anyt hi ng, t hat i t di d not mean t o. " Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1412

n. 6.

The onl y case ci t ed i n Cast l eman f ootnot e 8 f r om t he

domest i c vi ol ence cont ext i s one i n whi ch Congr ess el ect ed t o

def i ne t he cr i me wi t h r ef er ence t o 16. I n Fer nandez- Rui z v.

Gonzal es, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t consi der ed whet her a r eckl ess

mi sdemeanor coul d serve as a pr edi cate "cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence. " 466 F. 3d 1121, 1124 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( en banc) ( ci t i ng

8 U. S. C. 1227( a) ( 2) ( E) ( i ) ) . Unl i ke 922( g) ( 9) , however , t he

r el evant st at ut e i n Fer nandez- Rui z def i ned "cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence" as a "cr i me of vi ol ence" ( r ef er enci ng 16) commi t t ed

-13-


14/98

agai nst someone i n a domest i c r el at i onshi p wi t h t he per pet r at or .

I d. at 1124- 25. The Ni nt h Ci r cui t accor di ngl y conduct ed a 16

anal ysi s, appl yi ng Leocal and cases f r om ot her ci r cui t s t o r each

i t s concl usi on. I d. at 1127- 32. But even t hat r esul t di d not

f ol l ow so obvi ousl y f r om Leocal , as f our j udges di ssent ed

emphasi zi ng t he di f f erences between domest i c vi ol ence and other

cont ext s. I d. at 1136 ( War dl aw, J . , di ssent i ng) .

On r emand of t hi s case t o us, t he def endant s' br i ef adds

t o t he cases i n t he f oot not e by ci t i ng t wo ot her 922( g) ( 9) cases,

not ment i oned i n Cast l eman, whi ch t hey say di r ect l y conf l i ct wi t h

Booker . We di sagr ee. I n Uni t ed St at es v. Whi t e, 258 F. 3d 374 ( 5t h

Ci r . 2001) , t he r el evant pr edi cat e st at ut e cr i mi nal i zed r eckl ess

"conduct t hat pl aces anot her i n i mmi nent danger of ser i ous bodi l y

i nj ur y. " I d. at 381. The cour t f ound t hat t he st at ut e di d not

r equi r e a compl et ed "use of physi cal f or ce, " si nce i t was sat i sf i ed

by a r i sk of i nj ur y, and t he st at ut e extended beyond an "at t empt ed

use of f or ce" because at t empt l i abi l i t y requi r es speci f i c i nt ent

r at her t han r eckl essness. I d. at 382- 84. Rat her t han const r ui ng

t he phr ase "use of physi cal f or ce, " as Booker di d, Whi t e r el i ed on

pr i nci pl es of at t empt l i abi l i t y t o r ul e out r eckl ess pr edi cat e

cr i mes.

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Howel l , 531 F. 3d 621 ( 8t h Ci r . 2008) ,

al so added by t he def endant s, t he pr edi cat e st at ut e cr i mi nal i zed

r eckl ess " conduct whi ch cr eat es a gr ave r i sk of deat h or ser i ous

-14-


15/98

physi cal i nj ur y t o anot her . " I d. at 624. The cour t f ound t hi s

pr ovi si on t o be a "cat chal l pr ovi si on appl i cabl e t o i nnumer abl e

f act ual si t uat i ons, " so a compl et ed "use of physi cal f or ce" i s not

al ways or or di nar i l y pr esent . I d.

Si mpl y put , we ar e awar e of no case - - i ncl udi ng t he

cases i n Cast l eman f oot not e 8 - - i n conf l i ct wi t h Booker ' s hol di ng

t hat a r eckl ess mi sdemeanor assaul t sat i sf i es 922( g) ( 9) ' s

par t i cul ar def i ni t i on of a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence. " Rat her , 922( g) ( 9) ' s uni que cont ext , as descr i bed i n

Cast l eman and suppor t ed by t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y, suggest s t hat

922( g) ( 9) shoul d be i nt er pr et ed mor e br oadl y t han ot her

pr ovi si ons, i ncl udi ng 16.

B. St r uct ur e of Cast l eman

The def endant s present a second ar gument , whi ch i s t hat

Cast l eman' s anal yt i cal appr oach t o t he t er m"use of physi cal f or ce"

means t he conduct of nei t her def endant here coul d meet t hat

st andar d. Cast l eman hel d t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o i ncor por at e the

common l aw meani ng of "f or ce" i n 921( a) ( 33) ( A) , t he def i ni t i onal

pr ovi si on f or "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. " 134 S. Ct .

at 1410. " [ A] bsent ot her i ndi cat i on, ' Congr ess i nt ends t o

i ncorporate t he wel l - set t l ed meani ng of t he common l aw t erms i t

uses. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Sekhar v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2720,

2724 ( 2013) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . As a r esul t , t he

-15-


16/98

statutory term "physi cal f or ce" i s sat i sf i ed by "t he degr ee of

f orce t hat suppor t s a common- l aw bat t er y convi ct i on. " I d. at 1413.

The par t i es agr ee t hat , under Cast l eman, t he t er m"use of physi cal

f or ce" al so i ncor por at es t he common l aw mens r ea f or bat t er y.

The part i es appr oach t hi s as a gener al i zed quest i on.

They di sagr ee about whet her r eckl ess act s coul d or coul d not

const i t ut e bat t er i es at common l aw, and each si de marshal s support

f or i t s vi ew. See, e. g. , J ohnson v. Uni t ed St at es, 559 U. S. 133,

139 ( 2010) ; Lynch v. Commonweal t h, 109 S. E. 427, 428 ( Va. 1921) ;

Commonweal t h v. Hawki ns, 32 N. E. 862, 863 (Mass . 1893) ; 2 Wayne R.

LaFave, Subst ant i ve Cr i mi nal Law 16. 2( c) ( 2) ; 3 Wi l l i am

Bl ackst one, Comment ar i es *120.

We decl i ne t he par t i es' i nvi t at i on t o def i ne the mens r ea

of a common l aw bat t er y i ndependent of t he i nt er pr et at i on Mai ne

gi ves i t s own st at ut e. Cast l eman expl ai ns t hat t he t er m "use of

physi cal f or ce" i ncl udes " t he t ype of conduct t hat suppor t s a

common- l aw bat t er y convi ct i on. " 134 S. Ct . at 1411. Cast l eman

al so expl ai ns t hat Congr ess i ncorporated " t he common- l awmeani ng of

' f or ce. ' " I d. at 1410. Cast l eman hol ds t hat t he t er m "use of

physi cal f or ce" i ncl udes bot h causi ng bodi l y i nj ur y and of f ensi ve

cont act . Def endant s concede t hat r eckl ess causat i on of bodi l y

i nj ur y i s a use of physi cal f or ce. We see no r easoned ar gument

t hat of f ensi ve physi cal cont act does not si mi l ar l y ent ai l t he use

-16-


17/98

of f orce si mpl y because i t i s i nf l i cted reckl essl y as opposed to i ntent i onal l y.

We f ol l ow t he st atut or y scheme i n eval uat i ng whet her a

convi ct i on under t he Mai ne st at ut e cat egor i cal l y count s as a

"mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. "

1. The Scope of a "Mi sdemeanor Cr i me of Domest i c Vi ol ence"

As Cast l eman expl ai ned, 922( g) ( 9) i s a st at ut e wi t h a

par t i cul ar pur pose: t o ensur e t hat domest i c abusers convi ct ed of

mi sdemeanor s, i n addi t i on t o f el oni es, ar e bar r ed f r om possessi ng

f i r ear ms. 134 S. Ct . at 1408- 12. " [ B] ecause per pet r at or s of

domest i c vi ol ence ar e ' r out i nel y pr osecut ed under gener al l y

appl i cabl e assaul t or bat t er y l aws, ' " i d. at 1411 ( quot i ng Hayes,

555 U. S. at 427) , we thi nk Congr ess i nt ended t he f i r ear m

pr ohi bi t i on t o appl y to t hose convi ct ed under t ypi cal mi sdemeanor

assaul t or bat t er y st at ut es. See i d. at 1411, 1413. That

encompasses assaul t st at ut es f or t hose st at es t hat al l owconvi ct i on

wi t h a mens r ea of r eckl essness wher e r eckl essness i s def i ned as

i ncl udi ng a degr ee of i nt ent i onal i t y. A vi cti m of domest i c

vi ol ence of t en encount er s t he perpet r at or agai n, and a br oader

r eadi ng of 922( g) ( 9) ' s mens r ea r equi r ement bet t er ensures t hat

a per pet r at or convi ct ed of domest i c assaul t i s unabl e t o use a gun

i n a subsequent domest i c assaul t . I f Congr ess had want ed t o i mpose

a hi gher mens r ea, i t coul d have done so expl i ci t l y, as i t di d i n

t he i mmedi at el y pr ecedi ng sect i on of t he bi l l t hat est abl i shed

922( g) ( 9) . Booker , 644 F. 3d at 18 & n. 5.

-17-


18/98

Thi s vi ew i s conf i r med by t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of

922( g) ( 9) . Senat or Laut enber g expl ai ned t hat 922( g) ( 9) was a

br oad pr ohi bi t i on cover i ng "any per son convi ct ed of domest i c

vi ol ence, " wi t hout r ef er ence t o a par t i cul ar ment al st at e. 142

Cong. Rec. S10377- 01 ( 1996) . Another senator made st atement s t o

t he same ef f ect . See i d. Addi t i onal l y, Senat or Laut enber g

descr i bed t he l aw' s appl i cat i on t o scenar i os wi t hout cl ear i nt ent ,

i n whi ch domest i c ar gument s " get out of cont r ol , " " t he anger wi l l

get physi cal , " and one par t ner wi l l commi t assaul t "al most wi t hout

knowi ng what he i s doi ng. " 142 Cong. Rec. S11872- 01 ( Sept . 30,

1996) . Such conduct may not be "knowi ng, " but i t nonethel ess

const i t ut es a "use" of physi cal f or ce - - whet her i t causes

of f ensi ve cont act or bodi l y har m.

2. Mai ne' s Def i ni t i on of "Reckl essness"

What ever t he common l aw meani ng of bat t er y as t o

r eckl essness, Mai ne char act er i zes reckl essness as a mens r ea

i nvol vi ng a subst ant i al amount of del i ber at eness and i nt ent . The

st at ut or y def i ni t i on r equi r es t hat a per son "consci ousl y

di sr egar d[ ] a r i sk t hat t he per son' s conduct wi l l cause" t he

r esul t . Me. Rev. St at . Ann. t i t . 17- A 35( 3) ( A) ( emphasi s added) .

The di sr egar d of t he r i sk i s "vi ewed i n l i ght of t he nat ure and

pur pose of t he person' s conduct and the ci r cumst ances known to t he

per son. " I d. 35( 3) ( C) (emphasi s added) . Fur t her , i t must

-18-


19/98

" i nvol ve a gr oss devi at i on" f r om t he st andar d of r easonabl e car e.

I d.

Mai ne' s def i ni t i on of "r eckl essl y, " l i ke i t s def i ni t i on

of "knowi ngl y, " i ncl udes an el ement of i nt ent i onal i t y and

speci f i ci t y. To act "knowi ngl y" i n Mai ne, t he per son must be awar e

t hat t he r esul t i s "pr act i cal l y cer t ai n" t o occur . I d. 35( 2) ( a) .

Mai ne' s def i ni t i ons of knowi ngl y as cont r ast ed wi t h r eckl essl y

di f f er pr i mar i l y i n t hei r descri pt i on of t he degr ee of t he per son' s

awar eness of t he l i kel i hood t hat t he r esul t wi l l occur . Cf . 2

LaFave, Subst ant i ve Cr i mi nal Law, 5. 4( f ) . To act knowi ngl y and

r eckl essl y, but not negl i gent l y, t he per son must be awar e of t he

r i sk: t he r eckl essness def i ni t i on r equi r es r ef er ence t o "t he nat ur e

and pur pose of t he person' s conduct and t he ci r cumst ances known t o

t he per son. " Mai ne' s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t has made cl ear t hat

t he r eckl essness i nqui r y f ocuses on t he per son' s "subj ect i ve st at e

of mi nd. " St ei n v. Me. Cr i mi nal J ust i ce Acad. , 95 A. 3d 612, 618

( Me. 2014) ( quot i ng St ate v. Goodal l , 407 A. 2d 268, 280 ( Me. 1979) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) ; see St at e v. Hi cks, 495 A. 2d

765, 771 ( Me. 1985) ( compar i ng the subj ect i ve t est f or r eckl essness

wi t h t he obj ect i ve t est f or negl i gence) .

For exampl e, t he Mai ne Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t has

af f i r med a convi ct i on f or "act [ i ng] r eckl essl y when [ t he def endant ]

shot a power f ul handgun i nt o t he woods i n a resi dent i al area and i n

t he di r ect i on of hi s next - door nei ghbor ' s home, knowi ng wher e i t

-19-


20/98

was l ocat ed. " St at e v. Kl i ne, 66 A. 3d 581, 584 ( Me. 2013) ( ci t i ng

Me. Rev. St at . Ann. t i t . 17- A 35) . I t al so af f i r med a convi ct i on

f or r eckl ess conduct wi t h t he use of a dangerous weapon when t he

def endant "dr ove hi s van al ongsi de t he vi ct i m' s vehi cl e, r emai ni ng

t her e . . . [ , ] used hi s van t o push t he vi ct i m' s vehi cl e i nt o heavy

oncomi ng t r af f i c, and made cont act wi t h t hat vehi cl e at l east

once. " St at e v. Yor k, 899 A. 2d 780, 783 ( Me. 2006) .

Mai ne' s def i ni t i on of r eckl essness i ncl udes a vol i t i onal

component . I n t hi s, i t i s l i ke ot her st at es. See Fer nandez- Rui z,

466 F. 3d at 1141 ( War dl aw, J . , di ssent i ng) ( col l ect i ng cases) .

Notwi t hst andi ng Leocal , some j udges f ound t hat even 16

encompassed r eckl ess pr edi cat e convi ct i ons. I n Fer nandez- Rui z,

f our di ssent i ng j udges of t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t obser ved t hat Ar i zona' s

def i ni t i on of r eckl essness, l i ke Mai ne' s, r equi r es t hat t he per son

"be awar e of a subst ant i al and unj ust i f i abl e r i sk and af f i r mat i vel y

choose t o act not wi t hst andi ng t hat r i sk. " I d. Reckl essness

i ncl udes an "vol i t i onal , act i ve deci si on, whi ch necessar i l y

i nvol ves ' a hi gher degr ee of i nt ent t han negl i gent or mer el y

acci dent al conduct . ' " I d. ( quot i ng Leocal , 543 U. S. at 9) ; accor d

Bej ar ano- Ur r ut i a v. Gonzal es, 413 F. 3d 444, 449- 50 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005)

( Ni emeyer , J . , di ssent i ng) ( "Unl i ke a per son who acci dent al l y

i nj ur es anot her per son, a per son who act s r eckl essl y i n br i ngi ng

about harm t o anot her i s awar e of t he nat ur e of hi s conduct and

t hus can be sai d t o be ' act i vel y empl oy[ i ng] ' t he physi cal f or ce

-20-


21/98

t hat r esul t s i n i nj ur y ' agai nst anot her . ' " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng Leocal , 543 U. S. at 9) ) .

3. Cat egor i cal Compar i son

We concl ude that r eckl ess assaul t i n Mai ne i s " use of

physi cal f orce" wi t hi n t he meani ng of a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of

domest i c vi ol ence. " As noted above, 922( g) ( 9) i s meant t o

embr ace t hose seemi ngl y mi nor pr edi cate act s, occur r i ng somet i mes

i n moment s of passi on, wher e the per pet r at or consci ousl y

di sr egar ded a r i sk i n l i ght of known ci r cumst ances. Thi s of t en

const i t ut es domest i c vi ol ence. Reckl ess assaul t s i n Mai ne f i t t hat

congr essi onal i nt ent f or 922( g) ( 9) , i ncl udi ng t he par adi gm of a

domest i c assaul t as descr i bed by Senat or Laut enber g. As the

di ssent i ng j udges on t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , concer ned wi t h a di f f er ent

f eder al st at ut e, expl ai ned:

"Domest i c abuser s may be drunk or ot her wi sei ncapaci t at ed when they commi t t hei r cr i mes,and t hey may pl ea bargai n down f r oma f el ony t oa mi sdemeanor or f r om a st at ut e t hat r equi r esa mens r ea of i nt ent i onal i t y t o one t hat can besat i sf i ed by r eckl essness. But t hi s does notal t er t he nat ur e of domest i c vi ol ence as acr i me i nvol vi ng t he use of f or ce agai nsts o me o n e i n a d o me s t i crel at i onshi p . . . . "

Fer nandez- Rui z, 466 F. 3d at 1139 ( War dl aw, J . , di ssent i ng) .

Def endant s' posi t i on assumes t hat a r eckl ess act cannot

be an act of domest i c vi ol ence because i t l acks vol i t i on. But t hat

i s not t r ue. For exampl e, suppose Mai ne convi ct s a husband f or

t hr owi ng a kni f e t owar d hi s wi f e, i nt endi ng t o i nst i l l f ear r at her

-21-


22/98

t han t o cause physi cal i nj ur y, but act ual l y st r i ki ng her . The mens

r ea of t he convi ct i on woul d l i kel y be r eckl essness: i n l i ght of t he

ci r cumst ances known t o the husband, he consci ousl y di sr egarded t he

r i sk of har m. Such a r eckl ess assaul t can "subj ect one i nt i mat e

par t ner t o t he ot her ' s cont r ol , " Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1411, and

i s t he type of conduct i ncl uded i n 922( g) ( 9) even t hough t he

husband di d not i nt end t o cause bodi l y i nj ur y or of f ensi ve cont act .

Si mi l ar l y, i f Mai ne pr osecut es and convi ct s a par ent f or assaul t

f or wavi ng a l i t ci gar et t e near a chi l d i n anger , t he ci gar et t e

t ouchi ng and bur ni ng t he chi l d, t hat convi ct i on i n cont ext may wel l

be an act of domest i c vi ol ence.

The def endant s f ocus t hei r anal ysi s on assaul t s i nvol vi ng

r eckl ess causat i on of of f ensi ve physi cal cont act , r at her t han

bodi l y i nj ur y. We do not see why t hat di st i nct i on i s mat er i al t o

t he anal ysi s her e. The i ssue i s whet her 922( g) ( 9) encompasses

r eckl ess uses of f or ce, r egar dl ess of whet her t he use of f or ce

r esul t s i n bodi l y i nj ur y or an of f ensi ve physi cal cont act. I f t he

husband' s kni f e gr azes hi s wi f e or har ms her gr i evousl y, i t i s an

assaul t al l t he same. 4

4 The di ssent wr ongl y r el i es on our deci si on i n Uni t ed St at esv. Bayes, 210 F. 3d 64 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) , f or t he pr oposi t i on t he

f eder al assaul t st at ut e r equi r es del i ber at e act i on. I d. at 69( ci t i ng 18 U. S. C. 113( a) ( 5) ) . Bayes says that "i t i s suf f i ci entt o show t he def endant del i ber at el y touched anot her i n a pat ent l yof f ensi ve manner wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on or excuse. " I d. I ndeci di ng t hat t he st at ue di d not r equi r e speci f i c i nt ent , Bayes di dnot pass on whet her r eckl essness woul d sat i sf y t he st at ut e.Fur t her , t he di ssent r el i es on t he r ul e of l eni t y, an ar gument not

-22-


23/98

As a pr act i cal mat t er , i t i s har d t o i dent i f y a case of

r eckl ess assaul t i n t he domest i c cont ext t hat Mai ne woul d pr osecut e

but t hat Congr ess di d not i nt end t o serve as a 922( g) ( 9)

pr edi cat e. See J ames v. Uni t ed St at es, 550 U. S. 192, 208 ( 2007)

( expl ai ni ng t hat t he cat egor i cal appr oach f ocuses on " t he or di nar y

case, " not "ever y concei vabl e f act ual of f ense cover ed by a

st at ut e") ; Uni t ed St at es v. Fi sh, 758 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)

( " [ I ] n assessi ng whet her t he el ement s of t he candi dat e pr oposed as

a pr edi cate cr i me are over br oad, we need not consi der f anci f ul ,

hypot het i cal scenar i os. ") . Mai ne wi l l not pr osecut e al l "[ m] i nor

uses of f or ce. " Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1412; see Fl or es v.

Ashcr of t , 350 F. 3d 666, 672 ( 7t h Ci r . 2003) ( Evans, J . , concur r i ng)

( " [ P] eopl e don' t get char ged cr i mi nal l y f or expendi ng a newt on of

f or ce agai nst vi ct i ms. [ The def endant ] act ual l y beat hi s

wi f e . . . . " ) . But some gr abbi ng and sl appi ng

"accumul at [ es] . . . over t i me, " "subj ect [ i ng] one i nt i mat e par t ner

t o t he ot her ' s cont r ol . " Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1412. When i t

event ual l y "dr aws t he at t ent i on of aut hor i t i es and l eads t o a

successf ul pr osecut i on f or a mi sdemeanor of f ense, i t does not

of f end common sense or t he Engl i sh l anguage t o charact er i ze t he

r esul t i ng convi ct i on as a ' mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence. ' " I d. Af t er al l , not al l assaul t s wi l l serve as

made by t he def endant s.

-23-


24/98

922( g) ( 9) pr edi cat es, but onl y t hose occur r i ng i n t he domest i c

cont ext .

To be cl ear , we do not deci de t hat , on t he spect r umf r om

negl i gence t o i nt ent i onal act s, r eckl essness i s al ways cl oser t o

t he l at t er . Cf . Fer nandez- Rui z, 466 F. 3d at 1141- 42 ( War dl aw, J . ,

di ssent i ng) ( "Reckl essness i s a di st i nct mens r ea, whi ch l i es

cl oser t o i nt ent i onal i t y t han t o negl i gence. ") . We al so do not

deci de t hat r eckl essness i n t he abst r act i s al ways enough t o

sat i sf y 922( g) ( 9) . 5 We deci de onl y t hat t he Mai ne def i ni t i on i s

suf f i ci ent l y vol i t i onal t hat i t f al l s wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on of "use

of physi cal f or ce" appl i ed i n 922( g) ( 9) . See Booker , 644 F. 3d at

18.

C. Our Recent Deci si on i n Cart er Does Not Hel p the Def endant s

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Car t er , 752 F. 3d 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ,

we encount er ed si mi l ar f act s t o t hi s case. We r emanded f or t he

di st r i ct cour t t o det er mi ne whet her t he def endant had i ndeed been

convi ct ed of a r eckl ess assaul t . The opi ni on not ed t hat Cast l eman

"cast s doubt " upon Booker , but i t expl i ci t l y di d "not deci de" t he

5 As r ecogni zed at 2 LaFave, Subst ant i ve Cr i mi nal Law, 5. 4n. 6, "usage of t he t er m [ r eckl essness] has not been consi st ent . "

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Meeks, 664 F. 3d 1067, 1070- 71 & n. 2( 6t h Ci r . 2012) ( expl ai ni ng t hat "r eckl essness" i n Kent ucky i s al ower st andar d t han "bei ng awar e of and consci ousl y di sr egar di ng asubst ant i al and unj ust i f i abl e r i sk") . As t he di ssent obser ves,whi l e t he Model Penal Code def i ni t i on i s si mi l ar t o Mai ne' s ( t houghnot i dent i cal ) , Puer t o Ri co' s def i ni t i on- - unt i l t he new st at ut e i si n ef f ect - - has l anguage qui t e di f f er ent f r om t he Mai ne st at ut e.

-24-


25/98

quest i on bef or e t hi s cour t . I d. at 18 & n. 11. Now, squar el y

pr esent ed wi t h t he i ssue and havi ng r evi ewed Cast l eman, we resol ve

t he quest i on l ef t open by Car t er .

I I I .

The def endant s make t hree const i t ut i onal ar gument s, none

of whi ch ar e successf ul .

Fi r st , t he def endant s r enew t hei r pr i or ar gument t hat

922( g) ( 9) vi ol ates t he Second Amendment as appl i ed t o t hem. They

expl i ci t l y r ai se t he ar gument onl y t o pr eser ve i t , and f or good

r eason: i t i s "f or ecl osed by bi ndi ng pr ecedent i n t hi s ci r cui t . "

Car t er , 752 F. 3d at 13; see Ar mst r ong, 706 F. 3d at 7- 8; Booker , 644

F. 3d at 22- 26.

Second, t he def endant s of f er a "gl oss" on t hei r ear l i er

argument . They suggest t hat Cast l eman hel d t hat t he l i nk between

nonvi ol ent mi sdemeanor s and domest i c vi ol ence i nvol vi ng f i r ear ms

i s ext r emel y t enuous, and t hey ar gue that such a t enuous l i nk

cannot suppor t t he l aw' s const i t ut i onal i t y. To t he cont r ar y,

Cast l eman expl ai ned t hat t he l i nk between nonvi ol ent mi sdemeanors

and domest i c vi ol ence i nvol vi ng f i r ear ms i s " sober i ng, " and har dl y

t enuous. 134 S. Ct . at 1409.

The def endant s al so r ai se an ar gument out si de t he scope

of t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r emand. They cl ai m t hat 922( g) ( 9)

vi ol ates t he Fi f t h Amendment , Si xt h Amendment , and Ex Post Fact o

-25-


26/98

Cl ause because t he det er mi nat i on t hat t he pr edi cat e cr i me i nvol ves

domest i c vi ol ence i s made at t he t i me of t he 922( g) ( 9)

convi ct i on, r at her t han at t he t i me of t he pr edi cat e convi ct i on.

We have di scr et i on t o reexami ne i ssues beyond t he scope

of t he Supr eme Cour t ' s speci f i c r emand order when "necessary t o

avoi d ext r eme i nj ust i ce. " Uni t ed St at es v. Bur net t e, 423 F. 3d 22,

25 n. 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Est evez, 419 F. 3d

77, 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . But

"[ t ] her e i s no i nj ust i ce i n r ef usi ng t o r eexami ne a car ef ul l y

consi der ed deci si on based on t he same ar gument s t hat we have

al r eady r ej ect ed. " I d. at 25 n. 6. The Supr eme Cour t has al r eady

r ej ect ed ar gument s ver y si mi l ar t o t he def endant s' i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415, 421 ( 2009) .

The def endant s ar gue t hat Hayes was i mpl i ci t l y over r ul ed

by a recent Supr eme Cour t deci si on, Descamps v. Uni t ed St ates, 133

S. Ct . 2276 ( 2013) . Hayes hel d t hat t he det er mi nat i on t hat an

ear l i er convi ct i on i nvol ved a domest i c r el at i onshi p i s an el ement

of 922( g) ( 9) , not t he pr edi cat e convi ct i on. 555 U. S. at 418.

Descamps l i mi t ed t he extent t o whi ch cour t s can l ook at t he f act s

under l yi ng t he pr edi cat e convi ct i on t o det er mi ne whet her t hey f i t

t he subsequent convi ct i on, under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach.

133 S. Ct . at 2281- 82. The def endant s argue t hat , as i n Descamps,

t he subsequent cour t may not eval uat e the pr edi cate convi ct i on t o

-26-


27/98

det er mi ne a f act about i t - - her e, whet her i t i nvol ved a domest i c

r el at i onshi p.

We r ej ect t hi s ar gument . Whet her t he pr edi cat e

convi ct i on i nvol ved a domest i c rel at i onshi p i s not a f act about t he

pr edi cat e convi ct i on di scer ned t hr ough appl i cat i on of t he modi f i ed

cat egor i cal appr oach, i n vi ol at i on of Descamps. I t i s an el ement

pr oved anew i n t he 922( g) ( 9) pr oceedi ng.

I V.

The quest i on bef or e us i s a nar r ow one. We ar e asked t o

deci de whet her a convi ct i on f or r eckl ess assaul t agai nst a per son

i n a domest i c r el at i onshi p i n Mai ne const i t ut es a f eder al

"mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. " Congr ess i n passi ng t he

Laut enber g Amendment r ecogni zed that guns and domest i c vi ol ence are

a l et hal combi nat i on, and si ngl ed out f i r ear m possessi on by those

convi ct ed of domest i c vi ol ence of f enses f r omf i r ear mpossessi on i n

other cont ext s. Cast l eman r ecogni zes as much.

For t he reasons st at ed above, we af f i r mt he j udgment s of

gui l t .

So ordered.

-Dissenting Opinion Follows-

-27-


28/98

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, Dissenting. The maj or i t y f ai l s

t o adequat el y j ust i f y i t s depar t ur e f r om t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

di r ect i on and t he anal ogous deci si ons of our si st er ci r cui t s.

I ndeed, t he Supr eme Cour t ' s message i s cl ear . I n Uni t ed St at es v.

Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . 1405 ( 2014) , t he Cour t noted t hat we are t he

onl y out l yi ng ci r cui t on t hi s quest i on: our pr i or pr ecedent i s

i nconsi st ent wi t h ever y ot her ci r cui t cour t t o consi der t he i ssue.

See i d. at 1414 n. 8 ( cont r ast i ng our past posi t i on wi t h t hat of t he

Second, Thi r d, Four t h, Fi f t h, Si xt h, Sevent h, Ei ght h, Ni nt h, Tent h,

and El event h Ci r cui t Cour t s of Appeal s, whi ch have "uni f or ml y hel d

t hat r eckl essness i s not suf f i ci ent " t o "const i t ut e a ' use' of

f or ce") . The Cour t t hen r emanded t he i nst ant cases f or

r econsi der at i on i n l i ght of Cast l eman, see Uni t ed St at es v.

Ar mst r ong, 134 S. Ct . 1759 ( 2014) , i mpl i ci t l y suggest i ng t hat we

br i ng our hol di ngs i n l i ne wi t h t he ot her f eder al ci r cui t cour t s of

appeal s. We ar e obl i gat ed t o heed t he Supr eme Cour t ' s di r ect i on.

See McCoy v. Mass. I nst . of Tech. , 950 F. 2d 13, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 1991)

( " [ F] eder al appel l at e cour t s are bound by the Supr eme Cour t ' s

consi der ed di ct a al most as f i r ml y as by the Cour t ' s out r i ght

hol di ngs, par t i cul ar l y when, as her e, a di ct umi s of r ecent vi nt age

and not enf eebl ed by any subsequent st atement . " ) . Not onl y are t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons mandat or y, but t he l egal r easoni ng and

anal ysi s i n t he cases ci t ed by t he Cour t ar e al so cor r ect .

-28-


29/98

On r emand, t hi s case requi r es us t o answer , at t he ver y

l east , one quest i on of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on: whet her a Mai ne

convi ct i on f or t he "r eckl ess" causat i on of an "of f ensi ve physi cal

cont act " necessar i l y i nvol ves t he "use or at t empt ed use of physi cal

f or ce" as r equi r ed t o est abl i sh a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence" f or pur poses of 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) . The maj or i t y

f ai l s t o per suasi vel y expl ai n why, i n al l cases, t he mer el y

r eckl ess causat i on of of f ensi ve physi cal cont act cat egor i cal l y must

i nvol ve t he "use or at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce, " 18 U. S. C.

921( a) ( 33) ( A) , par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t he host of cases

st r ongl y suggest i ng ot her wi se. As expl ai ned her ei n, t hese cases

hol d t hat t he "use" of physi cal f or ce r equi r es t he act i ve or

i nt ent i onal empl oyment of f or ce, whi ch cannot be sat i sf i ed by

mer el y r eckl ess conduct .

Conf r ont i ng t hi s quest i on, we ar e not act i ng upon an

empt y st age; r ather , we must st ar t wi t h t he backdr op pai nt ed by the

Supr eme Cour t i n Cast l eman, whi ch i s t he basi s f or t he i nst ant

r emand. I ndeed, t he Cast l eman Cour t quest i oned whether t he "merel y

r eckl ess causat i on" of even bodi l y i nj ur y - - much l ess of f ensi ve

physi cal cont act - - coul d const i t ut e t he "use" of f or ce, not i ng

t hat " t he Cour t s of Appeal s have al most uni f or ml y hel d t hat

r eckl essness i s not suf f i ci ent , " because t he "use" of f or ce

r equi r es a gr eat er degr ee of i nt ent i onal i t y. Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct .

at 1414 & n. 8.

-29-


30/98

Al t hough t he maj or i t y opi ni on cor r ect l y observes t hat

t hose ci r cui t cour t cases i nvol ved di f f er ent st at ut es, t he

oper at i ve l anguage i s near l y i dent i cal and t he maj or i t y f ai l s t o

per suasi vel y expl ai n why t he r esul t shoul d be di f f er ent her e. Al l

of t he anal ogous cases i nvol ved t he "use" of " f or ce, " and most

i nt er pr et ed 18 U. S. C. 16. See i d. at 1414 n. 8 ( l i st i ng cases) .

Sever al of t hese cases6 anal yzed 16( a) , whi ch def i nes a "cr i me of

vi ol ence" as " an of f ense t hat has as an el ement t he use, at t empt ed

use, or t hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ce agai nst t he per son or

pr oper t y of anot her . " 18 U. S. C. 16( a) . That l anguage i s

mat er i al l y i ndi st i ngui shabl e, as r el evant her e, f r omt he Laut enber g

Amendment ' s def i ni t i on of a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence" as an of f ense that "has, as an el ement , t he use or

at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce. " 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) ; i d.

921( a) ( 33) ( A) . " [ W] hen Congr ess uses t he same l anguage i n t wo

st at ut es havi ng si mi l ar pur poses, . . . i t i s appr opr i at e t o

presume that Congress i ntended t hat t ext t o have t he same meani ng

6 See Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r esVi l l al obos, 487 F. 3d 607, 61617( 8t h Ci r . 2007) ( hol di ng that Mi nnesot a second- degr ee mansl aught ercan be commi t t ed r eckl essl y wi t hout t he i nt ent i onal use of f or ce,and t her ef or e i s not a cr i me of vi ol ence under 16( a) ) ;

Fer nndez- Rui z v. Gonzal es, 466 F. 3d 1121, 1123 (9t h Ci r . 2006)( hol di ng t hat r eckl ess conduct cannot const i t ut e t he "use" of f or cef or pur poses of 16( a) ) ; Gar c a v. Gonzal es, 455 F. 3d 465, 468( 4t h Ci r . 2006) ( r easoni ng t hat t he "use" of "physi cal f or ce"r equi r es t he i nt ent i onal empl oyment of physi cal f or ce, andt her ef or e hol di ng t hat a New Yor k second- degr ee reckl ess assaul tconvi ct i on i s "beyond t he scope" of 16( a) ) .

-30-


31/98

i n bot h st at ut es. " Smi t h v. Ci t y of J ackson, Mi ss. , 544 U. S. 228,

233 (2005) . 7

The maj or i t y opi ni on concedes t hat t hi s case present s a

"cl ose" quest i on. Ant e, at 3. I agr ee. Gi ven t he Supr eme Cour t

and ci r cui t cour t cases i nt er pr et i ng si mi l ar st at ut es and hol di ng

t hat mer el y reckl ess conduct i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o const i t ut e t he

"use" of physi cal f or ce, I bel i eve t hat t he r ul e of l eni t y al so

f or ecl oses t he def endant s' convi ct i ons her e. I ndeed, i t i s a

"f ami l i ar pr i nci pl e" t hat "' ambi gui t y concer ni ng t he ambi t of

cr i mi nal st at ut es shoul d be r esol ved i n f avor of l eni t y' " t owar ds

t he accused. Ski l l i ng v. Uni t ed St at es, 561 U. S. 358, 410 ( 2010)

7 Mor eover , t he cases i nvol vi ng 16( b) pr ovi de even st r ongersuppor t f or t he def endant s' posi t i on her e, as 16( b) i nvol ves

l anguage mor e suscept i bl e than t hat of 16( a) or t he Laut enber gAmendment t o a r eadi ng t hat encompasses r eckl ess conduct . Compar e18 U. S. C. 16( b) ( def i ni ng a "cr i me of vi ol ence" as a f el ony that"i nvol ves a subst ant i al r i sk t hat physi cal f or ce agai nst t he per sonor pr opert y of another may be used i n t he cour se of commi t t i ng t heof f ense") , wi t h Model Penal Code 2. 02( 2) ( c) ( "A per son act sr eckl essl y wi t h r espect t o a mat er i al el ement of an of f ense when heconsci ousl y di sr egar ds a subst ant i al and unj ust i f i abl e r i sk t hatt he mat er i al el ement exi st s or wi l l r esul t f r om hi s conduct. ") .Yet most cour t s nonet hel ess have r ej ect ed ar gument s t hat 16( b)can be sat i sf i ed by a pr edi cat e of f ense wi t h a mens r ea ofr eckl essness. See, e. g. , J obson v. Ashcr of t , 326 F. 3d 367, 373 ( 2d

Ci r . 2003) ( "[ T] he ver b ' use' i n sect i on 16( b) , par t i cul ar l y whenmodi f i ed by t he phr ase ' i n t he cour se of commi t t i ng t he of f ense, 'suggest s t hat sect i on 16( b) ' cont empl at es onl y i nt ent i onal conductand r ef er s onl y t o t hose of f enses i n whi ch t her e i s a subst ant i all i kel i hood t hat t he per pet r at or wi l l i nt ent i onal l y empl oy physi calf or ce. ' " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Dal t on v.Ashcr of t , 257 F. 3d 200, 208 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ) ) .

-31-


32/98

( quot i ng Cl evel and v. Uni t ed St at es, 531 U. S. 12, 25 ( 2000) ) . 8 The

r ul e of l eni t y bar s cour t s f r om gi vi ng t he t ext of a cri mi nal

st at ut e "a meani ng t hat i s di f f er ent f r om i t s or di nar y, accept ed

meani ng, and t hat di sf avor s t he def endant . " Bur r age v. Uni t ed

St at es, 134 S. Ct . 881, 891 ( 2014) . I n my vi ew, by per mi t t i ng a

convi ct i on based on t he r eckl ess causat i on of of f ensi ve physi cal

cont act , t he gover nment and the maj or i t y seek t o gi ve t he "use

. . . of physi cal f or ce" a meani ng di f f er ent f r om t hat phr ase' s

ordi nary meani ng. The ordi nary meani ng of t he "use" of physi cal

f or ce r equi r es t he i nt ent i onal empl oyment of f or ce, and not t he

mer el y acci dent al , negl i gent , or r eckl ess use of such f or ce. Cf .

Leocal v. Ashcr of t , 543 U. S. 1, 4 ( 2004) ( gi vi ng an or di nar y and

nat ur al r eadi ng t o t he phr ase "' use . . . of physi cal f or ce agai nst

t he per son or pr oper t y of anot her , ' " and hol di ng t hat t hi s phr ase

r equi r es "a hi gher degr ee of i nt ent t han negl i gent or mer el y

acci dent al conduct " ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 16( a) ) ) ; i d. ( expl ai ni ng

t hat " ' use' r equi r es act i ve empl oyment , " and r easoni ng t hat "a

per son woul d ' use . . . physi cal f or ce agai nst ' anot her when

8 I n addi t i on t o i t s acknowl edgment t hat t hi s i s a "cl ose"case, t he maj or i t y' s r el i ance on l egi sl at i ve hi st or y al so suggest st hat t he st at ut or y t ext i s ambi guous. Cf . Tenn. Val l ey Aut h. v.

Hi l l , 437 U. S. 153, 184 n. 29 ( 1978) ( "When conf r ont ed wi t h ast at ut e whi ch i s pl ai n and unambi guous on i t s f ace, we or di nar i l ydo not l ook t o l egi sl at i ve hi st or y as a gui de t o i t s meani ng. ") .Fur t her mor e, t he cont r ast i ng r esul t s r eached by t he Fi r st Ci r cui tand our si st er ci r cui t s on t he i nt er pr et at i on of t he phr ase "use. . . of physi cal f or ce" pr ovi de addi t i onal evi dence of t hatst at ut or y t ext ' s ambi gui t y.

-32-


33/98

pushi ng hi m . . . [ but not ] by st umbl i ng and f al l i ng i nt o hi m") ;

Gar c a v. Gonzal es, 455 F. 3d 465, 468 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hat

"t he use . . . of physi cal f or ce" r equi r es t he i nt ent i onal

empl oyment of physi cal f orce) . Moreover , gi ven t hat t he Supr eme

Cour t has st at ed t hat ( 1) " t he mer el y reckl ess causat i on of bodi l y

i nj ur y . . . may not be a ' use' of f or ce, " and ( 2) "t he Cour t s of

Appeal s have al most uni f or ml y hel d t hat r eckl essness i s not

suf f i ci ent " t o const i t ut e t he "use" of f or ce, Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct .

at 1414 & n. 8, I cannot see how t he pr oper appl i cat i on of t he r ul e

of l eni t y per mi t s af f i r mance of t he def endant s' convi ct i ons.

I expr ess no opi ni on here on whether t he "use" of

physi cal f or ce i s sat i sf i ed by ei t her t he r eckl ess causat i on of

bodi l y i nj ur y or t he i nt ent i onal or knowi ng causat i on of of f ensi ve

physi cal cont act . Rat her , I conf i ne my i nqui r y t o one subsumed

of f ense under t he Mai ne assaul t st at ut es: t he r eckl ess causat i on of

of f ensi ve physi cal cont act . Al t hough t he maj or i t y st at es that t hey

f ai l t o see why t he di st i nct i on bet ween "bodi l y i nj ur y" and

"of f ensi ve physi cal cont act " " i s mat er i al t o t he anal ysi s her e, "

ant e, at 22, I expl ai n her ei n why t hat di st i nct i on mat t er s. See

i nf r a Sect i on I I ( B) ( 1) . Namel y, even i f r eckl essness wer e a

suf f i ci ent mens r ea f or pur poses of bodi l y i nj ur y, a convi ct i on

-33-


34/98

under t he Laut enber g Amendment nonet hel ess cannot r est on t he

r eckl ess causat i on of of f ensi ve physi cal conduct i n Mai ne. 9

The Supreme Cour t has st at ed t hat , under t he Laut enber g

Amendment , Congr ess cl assi f i ed as a "' mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence' " " t he type of conduct t hat suppor t s a common- l aw bat t er y

convi ct i on. " Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1411. The Supr eme Cour t has

f ur t her expl ai ned t hat " t he common- l aw cr i me of bat t er y . . .

consi st ed of t he i nt ent i onal appl i cat i on of unl awf ul f or ce agai nst

t he per son of anot her . " J ohnson v. Uni t ed St at es, 559 U. S. 133,

139 ( 2010) ( emphasi s added) ; see al so Uni t ed St ates v. Bayes, 210

F. 3d 64, 69 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( " [ T]he common l aw pr ovi ded that an

assaul t commi t t ed by way of a bat t er y di d not r equi r e an i nt ent t o

cause or t o thr eat en an i nj ur y as l ong as t he def endant t ouched

9 Al l of t he exampl es ci t ed by t he maj or i t y - - squeezi ng,shovi ng, a squeeze of t he ar m t hat causes a br ui se, shoot i ng a

power f ul handgun i n t he di r ect i on of a nei ghbor ' s home, dr i vi ng avan t o make cont act wi t h anot her vehi cl e and t o push t he vi ct i m' svehi cl e i nt o heavy oncomi ng t r af f i c, a husband t hr owi ng a kni f et owar ds hi s wi f e i nt endi ng t o i nst i l l f ear but actual l y st r i ki ngher , and wavi ng a l i t ci gar et t e near a chi l d i n anger so t hat t heci gar et t e touches and bur ns t he chi l d, ant e, at 3, 12, 19- 20, 21- 22- - i nvol ve i nt ent i onal conduct t hat i s r eckl ess as t o t he r esul t ,whi ch i n near l y al l of t hose exampl es i s bodi l y i nj ur y. Bycont r ast , t he Mai ne st at ut es at i ssue her e per mi t s convi ct i on f orf ar l ess cul pabl e conduct : mer el y r eckl ess conduct t hat i s al sor eckl ess as t o t he r esul t of of f ensi ve physi cal cont act . I n sodoi ng, t he maj or i t y conf l at es mens r ea as t o t he r esul t wi t h mens

r ea as t o t he under l yi ng conduct t hat causes t he r esul t . I t i st hi s di st i nct i on that expl ai ns why common- l aw bat t er y per mi t sconvi ct i on f or ( 1) i nt ent i onal conduct t hat i s r eckl ess as t o t her esul t of bodi l y i nj ur y and ( 2) i nt ent i onal conduct t hat i si nt ent i onal as t o t he r esul t of bodi l y i nj ur y or of f ensi vet ouchi ng, but does not per mi t convi ct i on f or ( 3) r eckl ess conductt hat i s mer el y r eckl ess as t o t he r esul t of an of f ensi ve t ouchi ng.

-34-


35/98

anot her i n a del i ber at el y of f ensi ve manner wi t hout a val i d r eason

t o do so. " ) ( emphasi s added) ; St ate v. Rembert , 658 A. 2d 656, 658

( Me. 1995) ( st at i ng t hat " [ u] nper mi t t ed and i nt ent i onal cont act s

. . . [ ar e] act i onabl e as an of f ensi ve cont act " ) ( emphasi s added) ;

cf . Wayne R. LaFave, 2 Subst ant i ve Cr i mi nal Law 16. 2( c) ( 2) n. 32

( 2d ed. ) ( "[ W] i t h t he t or t of bat t er y an i nt ent i on t o i nj ur e or

t ouch of f ensi vel y i s needed") ; Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 182 ( 10t h ed.

2014) ( def i ni ng t or t i ous bat t er y as a "nonconsensual , i nt ent i onal ,

and of f ensi ve t ouchi ng of anot her wi t hout l awf ul j ust i f i cat i on")

( emphasi s added) . To t r i gger a vi ol at i on of t he Laut enber g

Amendment , t heref or e, t he rel evant pr ecedent counsel s t hat t he

of f ensi ve t ouch must be caused i nt ent i onal l y and not mer el y

r eckl essl y. By cont r ast , t he Mai ne st at ut es at i ssue her e per mi t

convi ct i on f or r eckl essl y causi ng an of f ensi ve t ouch. 10 Ther ef or e,

a convi ct i on under ei t her of t he Mai ne assaul t st at ut es i mpl i cat ed

her e does not cat egor i cal l y est abl i sh a vi ol at i on of t he Laut enber g

Amendment . Gi ven t hat t he r ecor d does not permi t a concl usi on t hat

t he def endant s' Mai ne convi ct i ons r est ed on a subsumed of f ense t hat

10 To r eckl essl y cause an of f ensi ve physi cal cont act i n Mai ne,a per son must consci ousl y di sr egar d a r i sk t hat hi s or her conductwi l l cause physi cal cont act - - somet hi ng mor e than a mer e t ouchi ng

- - t hat a r easonabl e per son woul d f i nd t o be of f ensi ve under t heci r cumst ances. See Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 17- A, 35( 3) ( def i ni ngr eckl essness) ; i d. 207( 1) ( A) ( si mpl e assaul t ) ; i d. 207- A( 1) ( A)( domest i c vi ol ence assaul t ) . Ther ef or e, t o sust ai n a Mai neconvi ct i on f or t hi s subsumed of f ense, t he def endant need not i nt endt hat physi cal cont act occur nor i nt end t hat t he cont act beconsi der ed of f ensi ve.

-35-


36/98

does const i t ut e a vi ol at i on of t he Laut enber g Amendment , t he

f eder al convi ct i ons at i ssue her e cannot st and. 11

11 Despi t e the f or egoi ng, t he maj or i t y opi ni on of f handedl yr ej ect s t he rel evance of t he mens r ea f or bat t ery under t he commonl aw. See ant e, at 16 ( "The par t i es agr ee t hat , under Cast l eman,t he t er m ' use of physi cal f or ce' al so i ncor por at es t he common l awmens r ea f or bat t er y. . . . They di sagr ee about whet her r eckl essact s coul d or coul d not const i t ut e bat t er i es at common l aw, andeach si de mar shal s suppor t f or i t s vi ew. We decl i ne t he par t i es'i nvi t at i on t o def i ne t he mens r ea of a common l aw bat t er y . . . . " )( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . At t he same t i me, t he maj or i t y ci t esCast l eman f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he "use" of physi cal f or ce

i ncl udes of f ensi ve cont act , due t o t he common- l aw meani ng of"f or ce" f or pur poses of bat t er y. I d. The maj or i t y opi ni on t husr el i es on t he actus r eus f or bat t ery under t he common l aw, butsi mul t aneousl y rej ect s t he r el evance of t he accompanyi ng mens r eaf or common- l aw bat t er y. See i d. I n so doi ng, t he maj or i t y f ai l st o suf f i ci ent l y j ust i f y i t s deci s i on t o "decl i ne" t he par t i es '" i nvi t at i on" t o consi der t he i mpor t of t he mens r ea of common- l awbat t er y t o t he quest i on at bar . Such a deci si on r equi r esj ust i f i cat i on, par t i cul ar l y because t he Supreme Cour t i n Cast l emanal so ext ended an " i nvi t at i on" f or us t o consi der t hi s i ssue when i texpl ai ned t hat Congr ess i nt ended t o cl assi f y as a " ' mi sdemeanorcr i me of domest i c vi ol ence' t he type of conduct t hat suppor t s a

common- l aw bat t ery convi ct i on. " See Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1411.

Nothi ng i n Cast l eman suggest s t hat t he phr ase " t ype of conduct "r ef er s onl y to t he act us r eus f or bat t er y and not al so t heaccompanyi ng mens rea. I ndeed, t he cont r ary concl usi on makes f armore sense. I f Congr ess meant t o i ncor porate t he common- l aw cr i meof bat t er y, i t most l i kel y meant t o i ncor por at e bot h t he act us r eusand i t s accompanyi ng mens r ea. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. ZhenZhou Wu, 711 F. 3d 1, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( " ' I n t he cr i mi nal l aw,bot h a cul pabl e mens r ea and a cr i mi nal act us r eus ar e general l yr equi r ed f or an of f ense t o occur . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.Apf el baum, 445 U. S. 115, 131 ( 1980) ) ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Cor nel i o- Pena, 435 F. 3d 1279, 1286 ( 10t h Ci r . 2006) ( st at i ng t hat"most cr i mes . . . r equi r e[ ] bot h mens r ea and act us r eus" ) ; cf .Uni t ed St at es v. Freed, 401 U. S. 601, 607- 08 ( 1971) ( expl ai ni ngt hat when "Congr ess bor r ows t erms of ar t " f r omt he common l aw, " i tpr esumabl y knows and adopt s t he cl ust er of i deas t hat were at t achedt o each bor r owed wor d" ( i nt er nal quotat i on marks and ci t at i onomi t t ed) ) .

-36-


37/98

Af t er gi vi ng car ef ul consi der at i on t o t he i ssues

i nvol ved, engagi ng i n t he necessar y st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on and

l egal anal ysi s, and appl yi ng t he r el evant pr ecedent , I heed t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s di r ect i on and f ol l ow t he l ead of our si st er

ci r cui t s i n di sagr eei ng wi t h t he maj or i t y' s concl usi on. Ther ef or e,

I r espectf ul l y di ssent .

I. Legal Background

A. The Statutory Framework

1. The Lautenberg Amendment

The def endant s her e wer e char ged wi t h vi ol at i ng t he

Laut enberg Amendment t o t he Gun Cont r ol Act of 1968, now codi f i ed

at 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) ( t he "Laut enberg Amendment " or

" 922( g) ( 9) " ) . Under t he Laut enber g Amendment , i t i s unl awf ul f or

any per son "who has been convi ct ed i n any cour t of a mi sdemeanor

cri me of domest i c vi ol ence, t o . . . possess i n or af f ect i ng

commer ce, any f i r ear m or ammuni t i on. " 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) . For

t hese pur poses, a "mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence" i s

f ur t her def i ned i n 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) as an of f ense t hat :

( I ) i s a mi sdemeanor under Feder al ,St at e, or Tr i bal l aw; and

( i i ) has, as an el ement , t he use orat t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce, or t he

t hr eat ened use of a deadl y weapon, commi t t edby a cur r ent or f or mer spouse, par ent , orguar di an of t he vi ct i m, by a per son wi t h whomt he vi ct i m shar es a chi l d i n common, by aper son who i s cohabi t i ng wi t h or has cohabi t edwi t h t he vi ct i m as a spouse, par ent , or

-37-


38/98

guar di an, or by a per son si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t oa spouse, par ent , or guar di an of t he vi ct i m[ . ]

I d. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) ( emphases added) .

2. The Relevant Maine Assault Statutes

The def endant s ar gue t hat t he r el evant Mai ne assaul t

st at ut es do not "ha[ve] , as an el ement , t he use or at t empt ed use of

physi cal f or ce. " See i d. Under Mai ne l aw, a def endant i s gui l t y

of "domest i c vi ol ence assaul t " i f ( 1) t he def endant vi ol at es t he

Mai ne si mpl e assaul t pr ovi si on, and ( 2) "t he vi ct i m i s a f ami l y or

househol d member . " See Me. Rev. St at . t i t . 17- A, 207- A( 1) ( A) .

Turni ng t o t he si mpl e assaul t provi si on i n t he Mai ne

Cr i mi nal Code, a per son i s gui l t y of "assaul t " i f "[ t ] he per son

i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y or r eckl essl y causes bodi l y i nj ur y or

of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o anot her per son. " See 207( 1) ( A) .

Thus, t her e ar e si x di f f er ent , di vi si bl e per mutat i ons of t he Mai ne

si mpl e assaul t st at ut e, each of whi ch can f or m t he basi s f or asect i on 207 assaul t convi ct i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Car t er , 752 F. 3d

8, 17- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "The Mai ne gener al - pur pose assaul t

st at ut e i s di vi si bl e i nt o si x per mut at i ons of subsumed of f enses,

based on the combi nat i on of one el ement f r om each of t wo

cat egor i es: ( 1) mens r ea ( ' i nt ent i onal l y, knowi ngl y or

r eckl essl y' ) , and ( 2) actus r eus ( ' causes bodi l y i nj ur y or

of f ensi ve physi cal cont act t o anot her per son' ) . " ( quot i ng

207( 1) ( A) ) ) . These si x subsumed of f enses ar e i l l ust r at ed i n t he

f ol l owi ng char t :

-38-


39/98

The six variants of the Maine simple assault statute:

Maine simple

assault statute,

Me. Rev. St at . t i t .17- A, 207( 1) ( A)

Actus Reus

. . . causes bodilyinjury.

. . . causesoffensive physical

contact.

Mens

Rea

Intentionally

. . .

1. I nt ent i onal l ycauses bodi l y i nj ur y.

4. I nt ent i onal l ycauses of f ensi vephysi cal cont act

Knowingly

. . .

2. Knowi ngl y causesbodi l y i nj ur y.

5. Knowi ngl ycauses of f ensi vephysi cal cont act .

Recklessly

. . .

3. Reckl essl y causes

bodi l y i nj ur y.

6. Reckl essl y

causes of f ensi vephysi cal cont act .

I n Mai ne st ate cour t , Ar mst r ong was convi ct ed of Mai ne

domest i c- vi ol ence assaul t under sect i on 207- A, and Voi si ne was

convi ct ed of Mai ne si mpl e assaul t under sect i on 207. 12 These pr i or

convi ct i ons served as t he pr edi cat e of f enses f or t he def endant s'

922( g) ( 9) char ges, whi ch ar e t he subj ect of t he i nst ant appeal .

A si mpl e assaul t st at ut e l acki ng a domest i c- r el at i onshi p el ement

( such as Voi si ne' s pr i or of f ense of convi ct i on i n Mai ne) can

nonethel ess serve as t he pr edi cate of f ense f or a mi sdemeanor cr i me

of domest i c vi ol ence, so l ong as t he domest i c- r el at i onshi p el ement

12Vi ol at i on of ei t her pr ovi si on - - t he gener al assaul t of f enseor "domest i c vi ol ence assaul t " - - const i t ut es a "Cl ass D" cr i meunder t he Mai ne Cr i mi nal Code, whi ch i s equi val ent t o ami sdemeanor . See St ate v. Al l en, 377 A. 2d 472, 475 n. 4 ( Me. 1977)( "We theref ore deem Cl ass D and Cl ass E cr i mes t o be the Cr i mi nalCode equi val ent s of mi sdemeanors. " ) .

-39-


40/98

i s pr oved i n t he subsequent f eder al pr osecut i on. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415, 418 ( 2009) ( hol di ng " t hat t he domest i c

r el at i onshi p, al t hough i t must be est abl i shed beyond a r easonabl e

doubt i n a 922( g) ( 9) f i r ear ms possessi on pr osecut i on, need not be

a def i ni ng el ement of t he pr edi cat e of f ense") .

B. The Categorical and Modified Categorical Approaches

Gi ven t he f oregoi ng st atut ory f r amework, we must anal yze

whet her t he el ement s of t he Mai ne assaul t st at ut e necessar i l y

f ul f i l l t he r equi r ement s of t he Laut enber g Amendment . I n cases

such as t hi s - - wher e a cour t must deci de whet her a pr i or

convi cti on f or an ear l i er of f ense ( l i ke assaul t ) sat i sf i es one of

t he el ement s of t he of f ense i n a subsequent pr osecut i on ( her e, f or

exampl e, whet her t he ear l i er of f ense "has, as an el ement , t he use

. . . of physi cal f or ce, " 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) ) - - t he cour t

det er mi nes whet her i t i s appr opr i at e t o appl y the cat egor i cal

appr oach or t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach.

1. The Categorical Approach

I n Tayl or v. Uni t ed St at es, 495 U. S. 575, 600 ( 1990) , t he

Supr eme Cour t descr i bed t he cat egor i cal appr oach, under whi ch

cour t s "l ook[ ] onl y t o t he st at ut or y def i ni t i ons of t he pr i or

of f enses, and not t o the par t i cul ar f act s under l yi ng t hose

convi ct i ons. " See al so Uni t ed St at es v. Dvi l aFl i x, 667 F. 3d 47,

56 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( same) . I f t he "st at ut or y def i ni t i on" of t he

pr i or of f ense necessar i l y meet s t he requi r ement s of t he subsequent

-40-


41/98

of f ense at i ssue, t hen t he cour t can det er mi ne t hat a convi ct i on

f or t he pr i or of f ense cat egor i cal l y const i t ut es a val i d pr edi cat e

of f ense f or pur poses of t he l at er pr osecut i on. See Cast l eman, 134

S. Ct . at 1414.

2. The Modified Categorical Approach

Some st at ut es, l i ke t he Mai ne assaul t st at ut es at i ssue

her e, ar e "di vi si bl e" : t hey "set [ ] out one or mor e el ement s of t he

of f ense i n t he al t er nat i ve. " See Descamps v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S.

Ct . 2276, 2281 ( 2013) . For t hese st at ut es, some per mut at i ons or

var i ant s of t he subsumed of f enses may categor i cal l y meet t he

r equi r ement s of t he subsequent of f ense, whereas ot hers may not .

Accor di ngl y, f or t hese di vi si bl e st at ut es, cour t s may appl y t he

"modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach" t o det er mi ne whi ch var i ant or

subsumed of f ense f or med t he basi s f or t he pr i or convi ct i on, and

t hus whet her t hat pr i or convi ct i on can ser ve as a val i d pr edi cat e

of f ense f or t he subsequent pr osecut i on. See Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct .

at 1414. Under t hi s appr oach, a cour t may "consul t [ ] t he t r i al

r ecor d - - i ncl udi ng char gi ng document s, pl ea agr eement s,

t r anscri pt s of pl ea col l oqui es, f i ndi ngs of f act and concl usi ons of

l aw f r oma bench t r i al , and j ur y i nst r uct i ons and ver di ct f or ms" - -

i n or der t o "det er mi ne whi ch st at ut or y phr ase was t he basi s f or t he

convi ct i on" under such a di vi si bl e st at ut e. J ohnson, 559 U. S. at

144. These document s ar e of t en cal l ed "Shepard document s, " af t er

-41-


42/98

Shepar d v. Uni t ed St at es, 544 U. S. 13 ( 2005) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) .

See, e. g. , Car t er , 752 F. 3d at 19- 20 & 19 n. 12.

3. Application

Under est abl i shed pr ecedent not cal l ed i nt o doubt by

Cast l eman and not chal l enged here, cer t ai n subsumed of f enses under

t he Mai ne assaul t st at ut es ( such as t he i nt ent i onal or knowi ng

causat i on of bodi l y i nj ur y) ar e unequi vocal l y val i d pr edi cat e

of f enses f or t he Laut enberg Amendment . See Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct .

at 1415 ( "I t i s i mpossi bl e t o cause bodi l y i nj ur y wi t hout appl yi ng

f orce i n t he common- l aw sense, " and " t he knowi ng or i nt ent i onal

appl i cat i on of f or ce i s a ' use' of f or ce. ") . I f t he Shepar d

document s showed t hat t he def endant s' pr i or assaul t convi ct i ons

wer e f or t hose par t i cul ar subsumed of f enses, f or exampl e, t hen we

woul d be abl e t o appl y t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach and af f i r m

t he def endant s' Laut enberg Amendment convi ct i ons wi t hout r eachi ng

t he r eckl essness i ssue. See Car t er , 752 F. 3d at 18 n. 11 ( r easoni ng

t hat under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach, i f t he Shepar d

document s showed t hat t he def endant ' s pr i or Mai ne convi ct i on was

f or i nt ent i onal or knowi ng conduct , t hen t he cour t coul d af f i r mhi s

convi ct i on under t he Laut enberg Amendment ) . The par t i es agr ee,

however , t hat t he Shepard document s f or Ar mst r ong' s and Voi si ne' s

under l yi ng Mai ne convi ct i ons are i nconcl usi ve and do not r eveal

whi ch var i ant s of t he Mai ne assaul t st at ut es ser ved as t he bases

-42-


43/98

f or t hei r convi ct i ons. Ther ef or e, t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach cannot r esol ve t hi s appeal .

Rat her , we must appl y t he cat egor i cal appr oach t o

det er mi ne whet her t he st at ut or y def i ni t i ons of t he Mai ne assaul t

pr ovi si ons necessar i l y i ncl ude t he "use or at t empt ed use of

physi cal f or ce. " See 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) , 922( g) ( 9) ; see

al so Cast l eman, 134 S. Ct . at 1414. Under t he cat egor i cal

appr oach, i f any one of t he si x var i ant s of t he Mai ne assaul t

st at ut e does not necessar i l y const i t ut e t he "use . . . of physi cal

f or ce, " t hen t he def endant s' convi ct i ons must be r ever sed. Put

di f f er ent l y, t o af f i r m t he def endant s' convi cti ons under t he

cat egor i cal appr oach, al l of t he subsumed of f enses under t he Mai ne

st at ut e must have t he "use or at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce" as

an el ement . 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Hol l oway, 630 F. 3d 252, 257 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( st at i ng t hat under t he

cat egor i cal appr oach, " t he [pr i or ] convi ct i on may onl y ser ve as a

pr edi cat e of f ense i f each of t he possi bl e of f enses of convi ct i on

woul d qual i f y" as i ndi vi dual l y sat i sf yi ng t he of f ense i n t he

subsequent prosecut i on ( ci t i ng Shepar d, 544 U. S. at 26) ) . The

def endant s f ocus t hei r ar gument on t he si xth and l east sever e

subsumed of f ense: t he " r eckl ess" causat i on of "of f ensi ve physi cal

cont act . " Ther ef or e, we must appl y t he gover ni ng pr ecedent t o

deci de whet her t hi s st at ut or y def i ni t i on necessar i l y i nvol ves t he

"use . . . of physi cal f or ce. "

-43-


44/98

C. The Supreme Court's Decisions in Leocal and Johnson

The Supreme Cour t ' s opi ni ons i n Leocal v. Ashcr of t , 543

U. S. 1 ( 2004) , and J ohnson v. Uni t ed St at es, 559 U. S. 133 ( 2010) ,

pr ovi ded f oundat i onal r easoni ng f or subsequent cases r el evant t o

t hi s appeal . I n bot h of t hese cases, t he Supr eme Cour t engaged i n

st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on t o det er mi ne whet her t he of f enses

under l yi ng pr i or st at e convi ct i ons had, as an el ement , t he "use" of

physi cal f or ce as r equi r ed f or pur poses of a subsequent f eder al

pr oceedi ng.

1. Leocal

I n Leocal , t he Supr eme Cour t exami ned a si mi l ar quest i on

t o t hat f aci ng us t oday, r egar di ng par al l el l anguage i n t he

st at ut or y def i ni t i on of a "cr i me of vi ol ence" under 18 U. S. C.

16( a) . Under t hat s t at ut e, a "cr i me of vi ol ence" i ncl udes "an

of f ense t hat has as an el ement t he use, at t empt ed use, or

t hr eat ened use of physi cal f or ce agai nst t he per son or pr oper t y of

anot her . " 18 U. S. C. 16( a) ( emphasi s added) . The pet i t i oner i n

Leocal had pr evi ousl y been convi ct ed i n Fl or i da stat e cour t f or

dr i vi ng under t he i nf l uence of al cohol ( DUI ) and causi ng ser i ous

bodi l y i nj ur y. Leocal , 543 U. S. at 3. The Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat

t he pet i t i oner ' s DUI convi ct i on was not a cr i me of vi ol ence under

18 U. S. C. 16. I d. at 4. I n so hol di ng, t he Cour t expl ai ned t hat

" ' use' r equi r es act i ve empl oyment , " r easoni ng t hat "a per son woul d

' use . . . physi cal f or ce agai nst ' anot her when pushi ng hi m . . .

-44-


45/98


46/98

suf f i ci ent . I d. at 13 ( "Thi s case does not pr esent us wi t h t he

quest i on whet her a st at e or f eder al of f ense t hat r equi r es pr oof of

t he r eckl ess use of f or ce agai nst a per son or pr oper t y of anot her

qual i f i es as a cr i me of vi ol ence under 18 U. S. C. 16. " ) .

2. Johnson

I n J ohnson, t he Supr eme Cour t consi der ed a rel at ed

quest i on: "whet her t he Fl or i da f el ony of f ense of bat t er y by

' [ a] ctual l y and i nt ent i onal l y t ouch[ i ng] ' anot her per son, Fl a.

St at . 784. 03( 1) ( a) , ( 2) ( 2003) , ' has as an el ement t he use . . .

of physi cal f or ce agai nst t he per son of anot her , ' 18 U. S. C.

924( e) ( 2) ( B) ( I ) , and t hus const i t ut es a ' vi ol ent f el ony' under

t he Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act , 924( e) ( 1) . " J ohnson, 559 U. S. at

135 ( al t er at i ons i n or i gi nal ) . The Cour t obser ved t hat

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

United States v. Voisine, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents