United States v. McDill, No. 15-2503 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction of two violations of 36 C.F.R. 261.3(c), which prohibits threatening, intimidating, or intentionally interfering with any Forest officer. In this case, the citations charged defendant with harassment, which was not prohibited by section 261.3(c), and interference. Therefore, the verdict was permissible only if it rested on the theory that defendant intentionally interfered with the officers. The court held that the district court plainly erred by subjecting defendant to a constructive amendment that materially and substantially affected defendant's right to notice of the charges against him. In this case, sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions on the grounds that he intimidated the officers. Because defendant was convicted of a crime for which he was not charged, and the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant's convictions for two violations of 36 C.F.R. Section 261.2(c) which prohibits "threatening, intimidating, or intentionally interfering with any Forest officer ... while engaged in, or on account of, the performance of duties for the protection, improvement or administration of the National Forest System or other duties assigned by the Forest Service" are reversed; the citations charged defendant with harassment and interference, but the government and the court effectively altered the charges set forth in the indictment to include intimidation and threats, and this constructive amendment was plain error; because defendant was convicted of a crime for which he was not charged, and the conviction was supported by substantial evidence, the conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Judge Colloton, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.