IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30827

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CHARLES LEE WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:17-CR-106-1

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Lee White challenges his jury-trial convictions for attempted 

second-degree murder of a federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114, 

claiming the evidence was insufficient to show he had a specific intent to kill. 

White’s preserved sufficiency challenge is subject to de novo review. E.g., 

United States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201, 207 (5th Cir. 2007). 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30827 Document: 00514894712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
No. 18-30827

2

Second-degree murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 is the “unlawful killing of 

a human being with malice aforethought”. When, as in this instance, the crime 

is attempted second-degree murder, the Government must prove defendant 

had the specific intent to kill. Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344, 351 n.* 

(1991). “Intent may, and generally must, be proven circumstantially.” United 

States v. Stoker, 706 F.3d 643, 646 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citation and 

quotation marks omitted). 

For obvious reasons, the jury “retains the sole authority to weigh any 

conflicting evidence and to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses”. United 

States v. Loe, 262 F.3d 427, 432 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Similarly, 

the “jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence”.

United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 601 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). 

“It is not necessary that the evidence exclude every rational hypothesis of 

innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except guilt, 

provided a reasonable trier of fact could find the evidence establishes guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted). Our review is “highly 

deferential to the verdict”. United States v. Harris, 293 F.3d 863, 869 (5th Cir. 

2002).

The evidence showed that White, as a federal inmate, injected himself 

into a prison disciplinary matter that did not involve him by blindsiding a 

prison counselor from behind with such force that the counselor fell to the 

ground. White used a knife to repeatedly stab the counselor and a correctional 

officer. The counselor was stabbed in the head; the correctional officer, in the 

back. And, White twice told the counselor he was going to kill him. 

White, the counselor, and correction officer were among those who 

testified. “[C]onsidering the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light 

most favorable to the prosecution”, a reasonable juror could have found, beyond 

 Case: 18-30827 Document: 00514894712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
No. 18-30827

3

a reasonable doubt, that White had the specific intent to kill. See United States 

v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citing Jackson 

v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). As discussed, the jury adjudges the 

credibility of the witnesses and was free to reject White’s construction of the 

evidence. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-30827 Document: 00514894712 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2019