Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/229/1296/577455/
Timestamp: 2017-09-25 13:25:32
Document Index: 531381747

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 846', '§ 241', '§ 3631', '§ 3631', '§ 241', '§ 6', '§ 3631', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4', '§4']

United States of America , Plaintiff-appellee , v. James Whitney , Defendant-appellant, 229 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2000) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 2000 › United States of America , Plaintiff-appellee , v. James Whitney , Defendant-appellant
United States of America , Plaintiff-appellee , v. James Whitney , Defendant-appellant, 229 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 229 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2000)
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (D.C. NO. 99-20010-01) [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Lisa J. Stark, Department of Justice (Bill Lann Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jessica Dunsay Silver, with her on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mr. Whitney asserts the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions on both counts. We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and inquiring whether any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2000). The defendant's hurdle after a jury verdict is high: " [w]e will not overturn a jury's finding unless no reasonable juror could have reached the disputed verdict." United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432, 1439 (10th Cir. 1997).
Section 241 does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Crochiere, 129 F.3d 233, 237-38 (1st Cir. 1997) (stating that " [t]he Supreme Court case of United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) . . . requires a holding that § 241 contains no overt act requirement") ; see also United States v. Skillman, 922 F.2d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that § 241 does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy); United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 169 (5th Cir. 1972); cf.Shabani, 513 U.S. at 14-15 (noting, in its holding that the federal drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846, does not require an overt act, that the language of the statute does not require an overt act, and that the Court has not inferred such a requirement from congressional silence in other conspiracy statutes).
The government need not offer direct proof of an express agreement on the part of the defendant. See United States v. Bell, 154 F.3d 1205, 1208 (10th Cir. 1998). Instead, the agreement may be informal and may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence. See id. " [T]he defendant's participation in, or connection to, the conspiracy need only be slight, if there is sufficient evidence to establish that connection beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494, 1497 (10th Cir. 1990) (citation and quotations omitted). Moreover, an agreement may be inferred from a variety of circumstances, such as, "sharing a common motive, presence in a situation where one could assume participants would not allow bystanders, repeated acts, mutual knowledge with joint action, and the giving out of misinformation to cover up [the illegal activity]." United States v. Davis, 810 F.2d 474, 477 (5th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Piche, 981 F.2d 706, 717 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Ellis, 595 F.2d 154, 160 (3d Cir. 1979).
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, as we are required to do after a jury verdict, there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Mr. Whitney agreed to burn the cross in the Madkins' yard. On the afternoon of the cross burning, Anthony, Mr. Roland and Mr. Geiger were gathered at Anthony's house. The men did not begin discussing Mr. Whitney's altercation with Mr. Green or the idea of burning a cross until after Mr. Whitney arrived. Referring to the encounter with Mr. Green, Mr. Whitney agreed with Mr. Roland's statement that, " [t]hat was a fucked up deal. He shouldn't have got away with that." Supp. Rec. vol. I at 74. Mr. Whitney added, "Yeah, it's pretty fucked-up. I don't know why he did it." Id. Mr. Whitney also referred to the Madkins as "niggers." Id. vol. II at 141-42; cf. United States v. Pospisil, 186 F.3d 1023, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding evidence sufficient to support conviction of conspiracy to violate federal rights in violation of § 241 where the defendants involved in cross burning made racially derogatory statements), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1724 (2000).
On appeal, Mr. Whitney contends the government did not prove he "did something to help or to encourage the crime with the intent that it be committed." Aplt's Br. at 25. He emphasizes that " [m]ere presence at the scene of the crime, even with knowledge that a crime is being committed is not enough." Id. (citing United States v. Taylor, 612 F.2d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 1980)). In support of his argument that the evidence of aiding and abetting was insufficient, he also points to the fact that the jury asked the court during deliberations to define "encouragement." We are not persuaded by Mr. Whitney's arguments.
"To establish a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3631(a), the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the specific intent to injure, intimidate or interfere with the victim because of her race and because of the victim's occupation of her home." United States v. McInnis, 976 F.2d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Skillman, 922 F.2d at 1373; United States v. Wood, 780 F.2d 955, 961-62 (11th Cir. 1986)).
Mr. Whitney was charged with aiding and abetting a violation of § 3631(a). Unlike the "non-overt act" conspiracy in 18 U.S.C. § 241, " [t]o be guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, the defendant must willfully associate himself with the criminal venture and seek to make the venture succeed through some action of his own." United States v. Anderson, 189 F.3d 1201, 1207 (10th Cir. 1999). "Participation in the criminal venture may be established by circumstantial evidence and the level of participation may be of 'relatively slight moment.'" Id. (citing United States v. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d 786, 794 (10th Cir. 1997)). Further, " [o]ne may become an accomplice . . . by words or gestures of encouragement, or by providing others with the plan for the crime." 2 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 6.7, at 138 (1986). "Conduct of the defendant or special circumstances may justify an inference that the defendant has associated himself with the criminal objective." Taylor, 612 F.2d at 1275.
There was also testimony from one of the co-defendants, albeit disputed, that Mr. Whitney initiated the idea to burn the cross in the Madkins' yard. Confronted with this testimony, the jury reasonably could have inferred he "provid [ed] others with a plan for the crime." Id. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Whitney's conviction of aiding and abetting a violation of § 3631(a).
"A codefendant's guilty plea may not be used as substantive evidence of a defendant's guilt." United States v. Baez, 703 F.2d 453, 455 (10th Cir. 1983). However, either the government or the defense may elicit testimony from a co-defendant regarding his guilty plea for purposes of aiding the jury in its assessment of the co-defendant's credibility as a witness. See id. Further, evidence of a co-defendant's guilty plea may be used to establish "the witness's claim to firsthand knowledge based on his or her admitted participation." United States v. Davis, 766 F.2d 1452, 1456 (10th Cir. 1985). These rules apply to guilty pleas of co-conspirators as well. See United States v. Austin, 786 F.2d 986, 991 (10th Cir. 1986). "Because of the potential for prejudice, cautionary instructions limiting the jury's use of the guilty plea to permissible purposes are critical." Baez, 703 F.2d at 455.
The government argues that it elicited testimony from Mr. Roland regarding his guilty plea for the purpose of "inform [ing] the jury of the circumstances under which he was testifying and his knowledge of the offense." Aple's Br. at 25. It is clear from the record that this was in fact the government's purpose, and such is a proper use of evidence of a co-defendant's guilty plea. SeeDavis, 766 F.2d at 1456. Further, although the prosecutor made one reference to the co-defendants' guilty pleas during the opening statement, the record does not reveal that Mr. Roland's guilty plea was improperly emphasized or ever used as substantive evidence of guilt. See Government of Virgin Islands v. Mujahid, 990 F.2d 111, 117-18 (3d Cir. 1993) (concluding that reference to co-defendant's guilty plea in prosecutor's opening statement and co-defendant's testimony on direct examination was not plain error, even though the court gave no cautionary instruction, because of the strength of other admissible evidence of defendant's guilt and lack of any intentional prosecutorial misconduct).
In Pedraza the government elicited testimony from two co-conspirators, on both direct and cross-examination, regarding their guilty pleas. See id. at 1525. We held the court did not commit plain error in failing to give a limiting instruction because " [t]he government's sole purpose in introducing the coconspirators' guilty pleas was the entirely permissible one of minimizing damage to the witnesses' credibility during their examination." Id. at 1526.
Additionally, many of our sister "circuits have consistently recognized that, under proper instruction, evidence of a guilty plea may be elicited by the prosecutor on direct examination so that the jury may assess the credibility of the witnesses the government asks them to believe." United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1004 (9th Cir. 1981); see, e.g., United States v. Tse, 135 F.3d 200, 207 (5th Cir. 1998) (" [The co-defendant's] guilty plea was properly elicited on direct examination to counteract the anticipated attack on [the co-defendant witness'] credibility by [the defense]."); United States v. Davis, 838 F.2d 909, 918 (7th Cir. 1988) ("The government may properly bring out agreements to cooperate and the circumstances behind those agreements in order to blunt the impact of cross-examination and to avoid the impression that the government was concealing the information."); United States v. Dworken, 855 F.2d 12, 30 (1st Cir. 1988) (stating that a co-conspirator's guilty plea is properly "elicited to dampen the effect of an anticipated attack on the witness's credibility"); United States v. Christian, 786 F.2d 203, 214 (6th Cir. 1986) ("The prosecutor may also wish to place the plea before the jury so as to blunt defense efforts at impeachment and dispel the suggestion that the government or its witness has something to hide."); United States v. Whitehead, 618 F.2d 523, 529 (4th Cir. 1980) (concluding that prosecutorial questioning about a co-defendant/witness's guilty plea need not be limited to the scope of defendant's stated intended inquiry about the plea); United States v. Veltre, 591 F.2d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 1979) (stating that prosecutor's reference to co-defendant's guilty plea during opening statement was not error because " [w]here . . . the codefendant is a witness at trial, subject to the rigors of cross-examination, disclosure of the guilty plea to blunt the impact of attacks on her credibility serves a legitimate purpose and is permissible").
Further, the record indicates that the government's brief questioning of Anthony regarding his guilty plea during direct examination was limited to issues of bolstering credibility. Finally, because defense counsel had already cross-examined Mr. Roland regarding the terms of his plea agreement, he provided additional grounds for the government to disclose Anthony's guilty plea early in his testimony. See United States v. Hernandez, 921 F.2d 1569, 1582-83 (11th Cir. 1991) (concluding that failure to give cautionary instruction regarding guilty plea evidence was not error, in part, because " [t]he defense invited the testimony [on direct examination] . . . [by] cross-examin [ing] other witnesses at length on their grants of immunity, guilty pleas and sentences and eventually cross-examin [ing] [the co-defendant] about his plea").
To establish plain error Mr. Whitney "must show: (1) an error, (2) that is plain, which means clear or obvious under current law, and (3) that affect [s] substantial rights." See United States v. Hughes, 191 F.3d 1317, 1322 (10th Cir. 1999) (citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1427 (2000). If these three elements are satisfied, then we "may exercise discretion to correct the error if it 'seriously affect [s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" United States v. Fabiano, 169 F.3d 1299, 1303 (10th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1311 (1999).
As stated previously, an error that is plain is one that is clear and obvious. An error is clear and obvious when it is contrary to well-settled law. See United States v. McSwain, 197 F.3d 472, 481 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 2024 (2000). The guidelines clearly express that, "juvenile status offenses" are "never counted" in a defendant's criminal history. USSG §4A1.2(c) (2). However, the sentencing guidelines do not define the term "juvenile status offense." United States v. Miller, 987 F.2d 1462, 1465 (10th Cir. 1993). Thus, in order for us to conclude the court's error, if any, was plain, Mr. Whitney would have to establish that his prior conviction of "Minor In Possession" constitutes a "juvenile status offense" within the meaning of USSG §4A1.2(c) (2) under current, well-settled law.
The Tenth Circuit has generally noted that the term "juvenile status offense" has been construed to mean offenses "where otherwise legal conduct is criminalized only because of the actor's status." Id. The Seventh Circuit has similarly stated that " [t]he obvious meaning [of a juvenile status offense] is conduct that would be lawful for an adult and is unlawful solely by virtue of the defendant's juvenile status." United States v. Ward, 71 F.3d 262, 263 (7th Cir. 1995). Further, Black's Law Dictionary defines a "status crime" as " [a] type of crime of which a person is guilty by being in a certain condition or of a specific character, such as vagrancy." Black's Law Dictionary 378 (7th ed. 1990); United States v. Williams, 176 F.3d 301, 312 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1264 (5th ed. 1979)).
However, the definition of "juvenile status offense" noted in Miller was merely dicta. The Tenth Circuit has never directly addressed or adopted a test for determining which offenses are "juvenile status offenses" within the meaning of §4A1.2(c) (2). Nor has the Supreme Court spoken directly to this issue. Thus, there is no well-settled law establishing the court made a clear and obvious error in including the "Minor In Possession" offense in Mr. Whitney's criminal history.
Applying these holdings, Mr. Whitney's prior conviction of "Minor in Possession" would not be considered a "juvenile status offense" within the meaning of §4A1.2(c) (2) because he committed the offense when he was 19, seeCorrea, 114 F.3d at 318-19, and because his actual conduct underlying his conviction, "Transporting Open Container" and "Driving Under the Influence," would have been criminal if committed by an adult, see Ward, 71 F.3d at 263. Thus, there is law, albeit not controlling, to support the conclusion that the district court did not plainly err in failing to exclude Mr. Whitney's prior offense of "Minor in Possession" from his criminal history pursuant to §4A1.2(c) (2). We take no position on the correctness of this result.
In sum, the law surrounding the appropriate definition of "juvenile status offense" within the meaning of USSG §4A1.2(c) (2) is unsettled. Accordingly, Mr. Whitney cannot establish plain error. See McSwain, 197 F.3d at 481; see, e.g., United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325, 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (concluding no plain error where "the error was 'plain' to no one at trial and had not been ruled on previously by this court; [and] it . . . involved the interpretation of a relatively recent federal rule, rather than a well-established constitutional or common law right").