United States v. Zerak Brown, No. 22-1900 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant was indicted for two counts of assaulting a federal officer and one count of using a firearm to further a crime of violence. The first assault count was based on Defendant’s altercation with Officer Johnson, the second on Defendant’s pointing his rifle at Troopers Shipley and Wakefield and Sheriff Medley. The third count, using a firearm to further a crime of violence, was based on the second assault count. At trial, Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for all counts. The district court denied both motions. Defendant was convicted of all three counts, and the district court denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration of the denial of his judgment of acquittal. He appealed his convictions.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Officer Johnson testified that when he went to the house the first time, it was in the back of his mind to look for possible firearms violations. His concern about the possible access to weapons is the reason he did not let Defendant go back inside the house. Thus, the jury could have concluded that Officer Johnson was fulfilling the mission of the ATF to enforce federal firearms statutes when he went to the home. To be sure, he was also conducting a state investigation, but an officer can be “engaged in the performance of official [federal] duties” while simultaneously fulfilling state duties.
Further, the court wrote that there is sufficient evidence that Troopers Shipley and Wakefield and Sheriff Medley were assisting Officer Johnson “in the performance of official duties” when they were assaulted.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. When defendant assaulted a Missouri State Trooper, the trooper was engaged in fulfilling the mission of the ATF to enforce firearms statutes, and he was engaged in performance of those duties when defendant committed the assault; defendant's conviction for assault of a federal officer is affirmed; a reasonable jury could find that the other officers present were assisting the trooper in determining whether there was a violation of federal firearms law, and were engaged in a task of mutual involvement; the evidence was sufficient therefore to support defendant's convictions for assault on the officers and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.
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.