Commonwealth v. Flemings
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since January 2007. |
 |
This article lacks information on the notability (importance) of the subject matter. Please help improve this article by providing context for a general audience, especially in the lead section. This article has been tagged since January 2007. (help, talk) |
COMMONWEALTH v. FLEMINGS (PA. 1995) 652 A.2d 1282
Contents |
[edit] Facts
On October 11, 1990, two members of the vice squad of the Erie, Pennsylvania Police Department were working undercover as drug purchasers. The defendant, Flemings, approached the vehicle to sell cocaine. Flemings left and then returned shortly with another person who then talked to the officer on the passenger side while Flemings talked to the driver.
The driver leaned over to the passenger side to complete the drug deal and his firearm became visible to Flemings. Flemings quickly stole the pistol and as the officer turned around, Flemings had the pistol pointed at the two officers. Flemings then ran.
The officers gave chase and eventually caught Flemings. Flemings testified that he did not know that the two were officers and that seeing the gun made him frightened so he took the gun to protect everyone.
[edit] Procedural History
Flemings was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial holding that knowledge by Flemings that the victims were police officers was an element of the crime and must be proven.
[edit] Issue
Is the knowledge that a victim is a federal officer an element of the crime of assaulting a federal officer?
[edit] Holding
The offense of assaulting a federal officer does not depend on whether or not the assailant harbored the specific intent to assault a federal officer. To be convicted of aggravated assault under that section, the defendant must be shown to have possessed mens rea. Thus, the defendant’s ignorance of an officer’s official status is relevant in those rare cases in which an officer fails to identify himself and then engages in a course of conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as the unlawful use of force – he would then be found to have exercised self-defense, which would negate the existence of mens rea.
The duties of a police officer frequently include undercover investigation in which the officer’s official status is intentionally concealed. The language “in performance of duty” does not mean the defendant must have knowledge of the officer’s official status since such a reading would all but strip the undercover officer of the protection the legislature intend to afford him.
The offender takes his victim as he finds him. Knowledge that the victim is a police officer is not an element of the crime of aggravated assault and need not be proven. Proof of intent to assault is sufficient.
[edit] Disposition
The judgment of the Superior Court reversed and the conviction stayed.
