United States v. Hedberg

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Hedberg

98 F. App'x 498

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 27, 2004

DocketNo. 03-5877

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 F. App'x 498 (United States v. Hedberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Hedberg, 98 F. App'x 498 (6th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Nathan Hedberg appeals from a district court order affirming his judgment of conviction and sentence. The government has waived oral argument, and this court construes Hedberg’s failure to respond to its show cause letter concerning oral argument as a waiver of such argument. Further, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

[499]*499Following a bench trial in 2002, a magistrate judge found Hedberg guilty of simple assault in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5). The magistrate judge sentenced Hedberg to six months of probation, and the court imposed a $500 fine and a $10 special assessment. Hedberg appealed to the district judge, who affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision. In this timely appeal from the district judge’s order, Hedberg argues that insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction because the magistrate judge improperly rejected his claim of self-defense.

Hedberg’s insufficiency of the evidence argument is without merit. Sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light more favorable to the prosecution, the court can conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); McKenzie v. Smith, 326 F.3d 721, 727 (6th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 1145, 157 L.Ed.2d 1057 (2004). Under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), a defendant who commits simple assault shall be punished by a fine and a term of imprisonment for not more than six months. A defendant violates § 113(a)(5) by deliberately touching another individual in a patently offensive manner without justification or excuse. United States v. Whitefeather, 275 F.3d 741, 743 (8th Cir.2002); United States v. Bayes, 210 F.3d 64, 69 (1st Cir.2000).

Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Hedberg deliberately and offensively touched his wife without justification or excuse. We specifically reject Hedberg’s claim of self-defense because his provocation caused any injuries he received from his wife. United States v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699, 717 (5th Cir.1996).

Accordingly,' we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Nathan Hedberg appeals from a district court order affirming his judgment of conviction and sentence. The government has waived oral argument, and this court construes Hedberg’s failure to respond to its show cause letter concerning oral argument as a waiver of such argument. Further, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

[499]*499Following a bench trial in 2002, a magistrate judge found Hedberg guilty of simple assault in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5). The magistrate judge sentenced Hedberg to six months of probation, and the court imposed a $500 fine and a $10 special assessment. Hedberg appealed to the district judge, who affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision. In this timely appeal from the district judge’s order, Hedberg argues that insufficient evidence exists to support his conviction because the magistrate judge improperly rejected his claim of self-defense.

Hedberg’s insufficiency of the evidence argument is without merit. Sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction if, after viewing the evidence in the light more favorable to the prosecution, the court can conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); McKenzie v. Smith, 326 F.3d 721, 727 (6th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 124 S.Ct. 1145, 157 L.Ed.2d 1057 (2004). Under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), a defendant who commits simple assault shall be punished by a fine and a term of imprisonment for not more than six months. A defendant violates § 113(a)(5) by deliberately touching another individual in a patently offensive manner without justification or excuse. United States v. Whitefeather, 275 F.3d 741, 743 (8th Cir.2002); United States v. Bayes, 210 F.3d 64, 69 (1st Cir.2000).

Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that Hedberg deliberately and offensively touched his wife without justification or excuse. We specifically reject Hedberg’s claim of self-defense because his provocation caused any injuries he received from his wife. United States v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699, 717 (5th Cir.1996).

Accordingly,' we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 F. App'x 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hedberg-ca6-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack