United States v. Ochoa, 75-2808.
Decision Date | 12 February 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 75-2808.,75-2808. |
Citation | 526 F.2d 1278 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Santiago Guadalupe OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Charles D. Butts, Fred A. Semaan, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
John Clark, U.S. Atty., James E. Bock, Ronald P. Guyer, Asst. U.S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges, and O'KELLEY, District Judge.
Santiago Guadalupe (Jimmie) Ochoa was indicted in six counts for assaulting agents of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), violations of 18 U.S.C. § 111.1 Ochoa waived his right to trial by jury, and the trial court found him guilty of five counts. Punishment was assessed at confinement for twenty-five years in the federal penitentiary.
Ochoa appeals the conviction and claims he acted reasonably but under a mistake of fact, believing that the agents were intruders attempting to damage his home or injure his family. Because the government failed to establish the necessary mens rea, Ochoa argues, the conviction should be reversed.
Following the arrest of Allen Gorsch, DEA agents received information relating to a violation of federal narcotics laws. Based on the information from Gorsch, federal agents procured four arrest warrants and a search warrant from a United States Magistrate. The agents devised a plan of operation designed to result in the simultaneous arrest of the four suspects before execution of the search warrant.
Four teams departed from the DEA headquarters and proceeded to execute the respective arrest warrants. One team composed of agents Alonzo, Henderson, Cavalier, Lewis, Overstreet, Seay and Losoya arrived at Ochoa's home at about 10:30 P.M.2 The team then split; three agents went to the backyard; four remained in front.
DEA Agent James Henderson, accompanied by Agents Overstreet and Cavalier, knocked at the back door of Ochoa's house and shouted, The agents saw the inside lights diminish and heard movement from within; nevertheless, there was no verbal response from Ochoa. After the shouts of authority were ignored three times, Agent Henderson forced the back door open with his shoulder. Ochoa fired his 30-caliber semi-automatic rifle in Henderson's direction — fortunately, without wounding the agents. Agents returned fire.
Agent James Seay, accompanied by Lewis, Losoya and Alonzo, approached the front door and identified himself to be a federal officer with an arrest warrant. His shouts were also ignored. When Lewis heard the shooting in the backyard, he forced open the front door. Ochoa fired his rifle at Lewis wounding him three times.
Ochoa held the federal agents at bay in the face of repeated commands to surrender, coupled with statements of authority. Agent Alonzo even illuminated his badge with a flashlight and threw his identification inside the Ochoa house. Nevertheless, Ochoa refused to submit to arrest until after arrival of city ambulance and a fully uniformed San Antonio police officer.
Ochoa does not contest the facts of the occurrence; rather he contends that he lacks the mens rea necessary for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111.
Ochoa and his wife testified that they were awakened by a phone call at 10:30 P.M. — the caller stated, "Jimmie, que paso?" and hung up. Subsequently, Ochoa saw several men surrounding his house. When the men began to beat on the front and back doors of his house, Ochoa grabbed a rifle. He fired when the men forced the doors open.
Ochoa and his wife stated that they were unaware of the true identity of the men and were afraid that the men had unlawful intentions.3 The assault, he claims, was a reasonable act in defense of his family and property.
The Supreme Court recently stated:
United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 679-86, 95 S.Ct. 1255, 1261, 43 L.Ed.2d 541 (1975) (emphasis added, footnotes omitted); accord, United States v. Perkins, 488 F.2d 652, 654-55 (1st Cir. 1973); United States v. Langone, 445 F.2d 636, 637 (1st Cir. 1971); United States v. Goodwin, 440 F.2d 1152, 1155-57 (3rd Cir. 1971); United States v. Young, 464 F.2d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1972).
This is a classic case in which the question of defendant's knowledge is relevant under 18 U.S.C. § 111. If Ochoa was unaware of the agents' identity and reasonably believed that they intended to damage his home or injure his family, he would be entitled to an acquittal. On the other hand, if Ochoa could be charged with knowledge of the agents' identity, a conviction would be proper. Additionally, if for other reasons the defense of justification is unavailable — e.g., if the defendant resorted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Hernandez-Salazar
...in support of the judgment if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, warrants them. United States v. Ochoa, 526 F.2d 1278, 1282 n. 6 (5th Cir.1976); United States v. Gant, 691 F.2d 1159, 1163 (5th Cir.1982). See also 8A J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice p 23.05......
-
Reese v. State
...States v. Williams. The court in Danehy also based its ruling on two circuit court cases relevant to our discussion, United States v. Ochoa, 526 F.2d 1278 (5th Cir.1976), and United States v. Young, 464 F.2d 160 (5th Cir.1972), which, according to Danehy, stand for the proposition "that a d......
-
U.S. v. Branch
...15 (noting that "agents who converged on the motel loudly announced their presence and identity"); see also United States v. Ochoa, 526 F.2d 1278, 1282 & nn. 4, 5 (5th Cir.1976) (rejecting the defendant's claim that he did not know the agents' identity where, like here, the evidence in the ......
-
U.S. v. Tomeny
... ... 144 F.3d 749 ... 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1513 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... Theodore S. TOMENY, Jr. and ... ...