United States v. Stephen Gustus

I concur in the court's decision because our earliest precedent, Hanson , 618 F.2d 1261 , appears to foreclose Gustus from presenting an intoxication defense to his § 111(a)(1) charge. I write separately because we have issued conflicting decisions on whether assault under § 111(a)(1) requires specific or general intent, and the issue is one that warrants greater attention.

As the court notes, a defendant must be charged with a specific-intent crime to merit an intoxication defense. See Kenyon , 481 F.3d at 1070 . Specific intent is usually defined as "the intent to accomplish the precise…