Opinion ID: 160828
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conviction under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(1)

Text: 33 18 U.S.C. 844(h)(1) makes illegal the use of fire to commit a felony. At trial, Mr. Magleby did not deny igniting a cross in the Henrys' yard. Consequently, if the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 241, it is also sufficient to sustain his 844(h)(1) conviction. 34 Section 241 is violated [i]f two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person . . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Section 241 requires that a specific intent to interfere with the Federal right . . . be proved. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 760 (1966). Mr. Magleby does not argue that the Henrys do not have a federally protected right to occupy their home. Rather, Mr. Magleby contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to oppress, threaten, or intimidate the Henrys in their enjoyment of that right. We disagree. 35 The record contains substantial evidence of Mr. Magleby's intent. Mr. Magleby testified that he decided to burn a cross to rile people up. Tr. at 921. He acknowledged that he knew the public found cross-burning highly objectionable. He anticipated that the cross-burning would receive the attention of the news media. He admitted that he understood the message of racial hatred conveyed by a burning cross. Mr. Magleby further admitted that he intended to burn and did burn the cross in the Henrys' yard. Given this evidence of Mr. Magleby's understanding of the meaning of a burning cross to the general public and the placement of the burning cross in the Henrys' yard, we conclude that the jury could reasonably infer that Mr. Magleby intended to oppress, threaten, and intimidate the Henrys in the free exercise of their federal right to occupy property. 36 Furthermore, the district court properly instructed the jury that they could consider the Henrys' reactions when deciding whether Mr. Magleby's actions were intended to be a threat. Robyn Henry testified that the cross-burning terrified her. Id. at 652. She testified that she discussed with her husband moving from their neighborhood. She testified that she was scared, confused, anxious, [and] didn't sleep well at night. Id. at 652. She stopped sitting on their porch because she feared for her safety. The Henrys' eleven-year-old son testified that he was scared because he didn't know if they were still going to try to hurt [him]. Id. at 659. He testified that he started carrying a baseball bat with him when he would walk in his neighborhood. He also testified that he started sleeping with this baseball bat under his bed at night [i]n case somebody came in [his] house. Id. at 653. Ron Henry testified that the significance of the cross-burning to him was move, leave, you're not welcome here, you were in trouble somewhere and they wanted you to leave, leave the community. Id. at 680. He testified that he was afraid for [himself] as well as the members of [his] family. Id. at 681. He also testified that he made several modifications to his home to improve security and protect his family. The jury was shown photographs of these modifications. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that a reasonable person would foresee a burning cross in another's yard being interpreted in a like manner. 37 Having viewed the above evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Magleby intended to oppress, threaten, and intimidate the Henrys in the free exercise of their federal right to occupy property. We therefore find that the district court properly denied Mr. Magleby's motion for judgment of acquittal on these counts.