United States v. LaMott, No. 15-30012 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of assault by strangulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 113. At issue is whether the jury was properly instructed to disregard defendant’s voluntary intoxication, which requires the court to determine whether section 113(a)(8) is a general or specific intent crime. Also at issue is whether the district court’s instruction to the jury on assault by strangulation violated defendant’s due process rights. The court held that assault by strangulation under section 113(a)(8) is a general intent crime, and defendant's intoxication was thus irrelevant. The court found no plain error in the district court's instruction on the elements of the offense. The district court’s inclusion of the word “wounded” may have been superfluous, but if anything, the inclusion of “wounded” in the instruction required that the government meet a higher burden than was necessary because section (a)(8) does not require proof of a wound or injury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction.
Court Description: Criminal Law. Affirming a conviction, the panel held that assault by strangulation under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(8) is a general intent crime, and that the district court therefore did not plainly err by instructing the jury to disregard the defendant’s voluntary intoxication, which is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence. The panel held that the district court did not plainly err in a way that affected the outcome of the proceedings, when it instructed the jury that it must decide whether the defendant “wounded” the victim, rather than instructing it to decide whether he “assaulted” her.
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.