## Facts

- Matthew Dunn participated in a protest against animal cruelty outside a pharmaceutical company’s building in Washington, D.C.
- Protesters loudly chanted and yelled near the building’s entrance.
- A private security team stood between the protesters and the entrance to prevent access to the building.
- The security director, Mattison Agneu, moved to prevent a confrontation between members of the security team and the protesters.
- While Agneu was intervening, Dunn shoved the protest sign he was carrying into Agneu’s chest.
- The shove caused Agneu to step backward; Agneu immediately protested Dunn’s conduct.
- After the protesters moved to another location, an undercover police officer who had been observing the protest approached Agneu and told him the contact amounted to an assault.
- About a month later, the same protest group returned to the building, and the undercover officer returned as well.
- The officer asked Agneu whether he could identify the protester who had shoved him; Agneu identified Dunn, and Dunn was arrested.
- Dunn was convicted in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia of assault based on the sign-to-chest shove and was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment (suspended), six months’ probation, and a $100 fine.
- Dunn appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the person who shoved Agneu and that, even if it occurred, the contact was too minor to support a criminal conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational fact-finder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn was the person who intentionally shoved his sign into Agneu’s chest.
2. Whether the shove amounted to criminal assault under District of Columbia law, or instead was merely de minimis contact that should not support an assault conviction.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to identify Dunn as the person who made the offensive contact.
- The court rejected Dunn’s de minimis argument, concluding that intentionally shoving a sign into someone’s chest in this confrontational setting was not trivial contact outside the reach of the assault statute.

## Legal Principles

- Under District of Columbia law, an assault may be established by an intentional, nonconsensual touching that is harmful or objectively offensive, even without serious injury.
- On a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and does not reweigh credibility determinations made by the fact-finder.
- A de minimis-contact theory does not bar liability when the touching is deliberate and directed at another person in a hostile or confrontational manner, rather than incidental contact associated with ordinary movement in public.
- Expressive activity does not exempt a defendant from generally applicable criminal laws when the prosecution is for physical conduct (here, the shove), not for the viewpoint expressed.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed Dunn’s assault conviction because the trial evidence permitted a rational finding that Dunn was the protester who shoved his sign into Agneu’s chest, and the intentional, confrontational contact—strong enough to make Agneu step back—constituted an offensive touching under District of Columbia assault law rather than mere trivial contact.


Dunn v. United States, 976 A.2d 217 (2009)