Dunn v. United States

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed Matthew Ryan Dunn's conviction for assault after he shoved a private security officer during an animal-rights protest. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Dunn intentionally made offensive contact with the officer, rejected the claim that the trial judge relied on a propensity assumption about political protesters, and declined to recognize a judicially created de minimis defense to assault.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support Dunn's assault conviction because the testimony permitted a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Dunn intentionally made offensive contact with Agneu, had the apparent ability to injure or offend him, and committed the act voluntarily.
2. The record did not show that the trial judge found Dunn guilty because political protesters supposedly have a propensity for violence.
3. The District of Columbia does not recognize a judicially created de minimis defense to assault, and the slightness of the shove did not defeat the conviction because an offensive assault need not cause physical injury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence established that Dunn intentionally made offensive physical contact with Agneu and therefore committed assault.
2. Whether the trial judge improperly relied on a perceived propensity of political protesters to commit violence in finding Dunn guilty.
3. Whether Dunn's shove was too trivial to constitute assault or whether the District of Columbia recognizes a judicially created de minimis defense to assault.

Disposition

affirmed