PARKER, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal in a criminal case. Appellant was charged under an indictment containing two counts with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 which provides:
The first count of the indictment charged that appellant "opposed, impeded and interfered with" one Irwin, a deputy United States Marshal, while engaged in official duties. The second count charged that he "forcibly assaulted, opposed, impeded and interfered with" the deputy marshal while engaged in official duty, and "in the commission of such act used a deadly and dangerous weapon, that is a shot gun". The jury convicted appellant on the first count but found him not guilty on the second count.
Appellant complains because of the refusal of the trial judge to exclude evidence as to what took place during a search of his residence, to direct a verdict of acquittal on the evidence and to arrest the judgment because of the failure of the first count of the indictment to charge the use of force in connection with the "opposing, impeding and interfering" charged and because there was an acquittal on the count charging the use of force. The first two points are so lacking in merit as not to warrant discussion. The remaining point, while not ground for arresting the judgment, calls attention to error in submitting the case to the jury of so fundamental a character as to require that the conviction be reversed.
The facts are that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of one Carl Ballard, whom the federal officers believed to be at the home of appellant, who resided in a small house in a rural section of North Carolina. The officers went to appellant's home in the night time and found the premises dark. They called out but received no answer until one of them climbed up and flashed a light in a window of one of the rooms, where he saw appellant lying on a bed. Appellant, who claims that he was awakened and frightened by the light flashed in his face, seized a gun and fired through the window for the purpose, as he says, of frightening away persons whom he thought were unlawfully invading his premises. Learning that the persons with whom he was dealing were officers of the law, he opened the door and voluntarily admitted them to the house, but upon inquiry, denied that Carl Ballard was there. The officers proceeded to search the house and found Ballard hiding in the attic. Appellant testified on the trial that Ballard had left the house sometime prior to the arrival of the officers and that appellant, having gone to sleep in the meantime, did not know of his return; but there was other evidence which would justify the jury in believing that appellant was not telling the truth about this and that he had denied the presence of Ballard for the purpose of misleading the officers.
The trial judge correctly instructed the jury that, if they found that appellant fired the gun for the purpose of obstructing and impeding the officers in the discharge of their duty, the jury could convict him under the second count of the indictment. He further instructed them, however, that the prosecution contended that, even if the appellant did not fire the gun for that purpose, he would nevertheless be guilty under the first count if he attempted to mislead the officers by telling them that Ballard was not in the house;
While under some statutes and the decisions in some jurisdictions the use of force is not always a necessary element in the crime of resisting or interfering with an officer in the discharge of his duties, some use of force or threat to use it or display of force in such way as to intimidate or interfere with the officer is generally present. See cases collected in note in 48 A.L.R. 746 et seq. And the Supreme Court in a recent case has held that mere refusal to unlock a door does not constitute such interference even under a statute which makes no reference to force as an element of the offense. District of Columbia v. Little, 339 U.S. 1, 70 S.Ct. 468, 94 L. Ed. 599. In the statute under which appellant here was indicted, however, Congress has not left the matter in doubt but has specifically prescribed the use of force as an essential element of the crime, saying "Whoever forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with", etc. (Italics supplied). The use of the adverb "forcibly" before the first of the string of verbs, with the disjunctive conjunction used only between the last two of them, shows quite plainly that the adverb is to be interpreted as modifying them all. Cf. Porto Rico Ry. Light & Power Co. v. Mor, 253 U.S. 345, 348, 40 S.Ct. 516, 64 L.Ed. 944. Not only is this required by the ordinary rules of grammatical construction, but it would be absurd to limit the modifying effect of "forcibly" to the word "assaults", since this is the only one of the succeeding verbs in which the use or threat of force is necessarily implied and as to which the use of the adverb adds nothing. It should be noted also that section 111 is one of the sections under chapter 7 of the Criminal Code headed "Assault" and that the other sections of the chapter relate to assaults upon public ministers, and assaults and maimings within maritime and territorial jurisdiction. Such grouping of the section with others defining crimes in which force is a necessary element is not without significance. Noscitur a sociis.
When the history of the section is considered, it becomes perfectly clear that the adverb "forcibly" was intended to modify each of the verbs which succeeded it. The section was a consolidation of two sections of Title 18 as originally adopted. These were section 118, which was headed "Molesting Animal Industry employees * *", and section 254, which was headed "Resisting, interfering with or assaulting federal officer". Consideration of the latter section shows clearly that "forcibly" was intended to apply to the other verbs used and not to "assault" alone, for the crime of assault was defined in a separate clause and "forcibly" immediately preceded "resist". The language of that section before its consolidation was as follows:
It is perfectly clear that, when the revisers brought forward into 18 U.S.C. § 111 the provisions of former sections 118
Even though the use or threat of force is a necessary ingredient of the crime charged, we do not think that the first count of the indictment here should be held bad on a motion in arrest of judgment, since the indictment refers specifically to 18 U.S.C. § 111 and the language used describes the offense sufficiently to apprise the appellant of the crime charged and protect him against subsequent prosecution therefor. This is all that is required. See Aaron v. United States, 4 Cir., 188 F.2d 446, 447; Lucas v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 865; Pifer v. United States, 4 Cir., 158 F.2d 867; Denny v. United States, 4 Cir., 151 F.2d 828; Nye v. United States, 4 Cir., 137 F.2d 73; Martin v. United States, 4 Cir., 299 F. 287. Since, however, under the charge of the court the jury may have based its finding of guilt under the first count upon the false representations made by appellant that Ballard was not in the house, we do not think that the conviction on that count should be allowed to stand. The judgment appealed from will accordingly be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on the first count. On such trial the verdict upon the second count will preclude consideration of the firing of the gun as tending to establish the crime charged.