Opinion ID: 610105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Evidence on the Accompaniment Count

Text: 12 Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113(e) provides: 13 Whoever, in committing any offense defined in this section, or in avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension for the commission of such offense, or in freeing himself or attempting to free himself from arrest or confinement for such offense, kills any person, or forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person, shall be imprisoned not less than ten years, or punished by death if the verdict of the jury shall so direct. 14 (Emphasis added.) 15 We had occasion to discuss this section in United States v. Miller, 793 F.2d 786 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 934 (1986). Miller, as does this case, involved an escape from jail, although in Miller the escape was unsuccessful. Many of the Miller facts parallel those here, since the prison guards involved were never taken out of the jail. Miller and codefendant Melton jumped a prison guard and told him not to do anything stupid or harm would come to him. They then took the guard down various hallways, opening doors along the way. When they arrived at the control room, they told the guard to tell the persons inside to unlock the door or we're going to kill you. Id. at 788. When the control room personnel refused to open the door, Miller and Melton ran back to their cells when they heard an elevator bringing help. 16 In analyzing whether the facts in Miller constituted a violation of § 2113(e), we stated: 17 Several factors support denial of the motion for acquittal. First, it is clear that Miller was an integral part of the scheme to escape. Second, Miller's intention to use force in some respect is evidenced by his possession of the weighted sock. Third, the evidence establishes unequivocally that Miller threatened Baughman, warning him that he would get hurt if he did anything stupid. This evidence is sufficient to allow a jury to infer that Baughman accompanied Melton and Miller without consent and by the use of force. Accordingly the district court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal. 18 Id. at 789. Here the defendant had a firearm which he used to force Kirby and Martin to accompany him for the purpose of locking them up so that he could complete his escape. The jury could properly conclude that the locking up of Kirby and Martin was central to defendant's escape, and that they only went down the hallway under threat of force against them. 19 AFFIRMED.