Opinion ID: 569089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 42 We review a denial of a timely motion for judgment of acquittal by assessing whether the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, viewed most favorably to the verdict, could persuade a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., United States v. Desmarais, 938 F.2d 347, 352 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Cuevas-Esquivel, 905 F.2d 510, 514 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 208, 112 L.Ed.2d 169 (1990). 8 43 Section 2113(a) criminalizes the taking of money or property from a federally insured institution either by force and violence, or by intimidation. United States v. Atkins, 698 F.2d 711, 715 (5th Cir.1983). Intimidation is conduct reasonably calculated to produce fear. United States v. Harris, 530 F.2d 576, 579 (4th Cir.1976); see also United States v. Robinson, 527 F.2d 1170, 1171 (6th Cir.1975); United States v. Alsop, 479 F.2d 65, 66 (9th Cir.1973) (taking in such a way as to place ordinary person in fear of bodily harm constitutes intimidation). The evidence was sufficient to demonstrate intimidation. 44 Henson was charged in count II with robbing the Boston Five Cent Savings Bank. During the robbery, Henson stood within two feet of the teller. He handed the teller a note directing her to put fifties and twenties into an envelope now!! The teller promptly responded by removing the money from her cash drawer and handing it to Henson. The teller testified that Henson made no threatening gestures and engaged in no acts of force or violence, but that she was very nervous and upset. 45 Although no weapon was displayed and no threat of bodily harm was expressed, a rational juror reasonably could find that Henson's emphatic written demand for the immediate surrender of the bank's money was enough to cause fear in an ordinary person under these circumstances. See United States v. Bingham, 628 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir.1980) (handing teller a note stating that she had three seconds to hand over money, and repeating demand, amounted to intimidation); United States v. Robinson, 527 F.2d at 1171 (demanding teller to [g]ive me all your money, accompanied by presentation of pouch, constituted intimidation); United States v. Hopkins, 703 F.2d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir.1983) (note stating: Give me all your hundreds, fifties and twenties. This is a robbery.) Neither the actual or threatened display of a weapon, nor an explicit threat of force, is essential to establish intimidation under the statute. Robinson, 527 F.2d at 1172; Bingham, 628 F.2d at 549. 46 Similar evidence supported the verdicts under counts I and III. As to count I, there was testimony that Henson handed the teller a note stating, Put small bills, twenties and fifties, in an envelope and hurry. Moreover, as the teller was gathering the money, Henson said, I know you're stalling. Hurry up and you won't get hurt. The teller testified that she was very scared during the robbery. As to count III, the teller testified that she was handed a note demanding that money be handed over quickly and that after she had handed him some of the money she was told you can do better than that. The teller testified that she was frightened, and ran from her teller window after the robbery. From the perspective of an ordinary person confronted with the predicament in which these tellers suddenly found themselves, Henson's communications clearly were sufficient to raise fears of bodily harm. See Lawrence, 618 F.2d 986, 987 (2d Cir.1980) (statement to teller, I don't want to see you or anyone else get hurt, clear evidence of intimidation). Thus, Henson's convictions under counts I and III did not amount to clear and gross or manifest injustice. See Arango-Echeberry, 927 F.2d at 37.