## Facts

- Derrek E. Arrington was indicted on four federal counts arising from an April 13, 2000 traffic stop in Washington, D.C.
- U.S. Park Police officers stopped Arrington’s car for lacking a front license plate; an officer observed a small bag with white-powder residue on the floorboard.
- Officers asked Arrington to exit the vehicle; instead, Arrington reached for the gear shift.
- With three officers partially inside or leaning into the vehicle, two holding Arrington, Arrington shifted into drive and accelerated rapidly.
- As the car moved, officers were dragged, struck by the open door, and placed at risk of being run over or crushed.
- The jury acquitted Arrington of attempted murder of a federal officer, discharging a firearm during a crime of violence, and felon-in-possession of a firearm.
- The jury convicted Arrington of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers using a dangerous weapon (the automobile), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), (b).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court plainly erred in instructing the jury on the mens rea and meaning of “forcibly” under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), (b).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational jury to find that Arrington used his automobile as a “dangerous weapon” under 18 U.S.C. § 111(b).

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held there was no plain error in the jury instructions, viewed as a whole, because they required “knowing and willful” conduct rather than accident or mistake.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Arrington used the car in a manner capable of causing serious bodily injury, satisfying § 111(b)’s dangerous-weapon element.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) prohibits forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with covered federal officers performing official duties; § 111(b) increases punishment when the acts involve a deadly or dangerous weapon or cause bodily injury.
- An object not inherently deadly may qualify as a dangerous weapon if used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury; an automobile can be a dangerous weapon when intentionally driven in a way that endangers persons.
- Unpreserved challenges to jury instructions are reviewed for plain error; reversal requires a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights and the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
- Evidence is sufficient if, viewing it in the government’s favor, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Arrington’s § 111(a), (b) conviction, concluding that the jury instructions adequately required intentional, non-accidental conduct under plain-error review and that the manner in which Arrington accelerated while officers were attached to or inside the vehicle allowed a rational jury to find use of a dangerous weapon.


United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40 (D.C. Cir. 2002)