Opinion ID: 2968008
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In addition to challenging the indictment, Miss Lockhart also claims the government failed to prove she had the necessary intent 6 UNITED STATES v. LOCKHART 1 under the statute. For the reasons that follow, we find sufficient evidence to support Miss Lockhart’s conviction. The standard of review in criminal cases where the district court sits in judgment without a jury is well-settled. We review findings on factual issues other than the ultimate issue of guilt using the clearly erroneous test. On the ultimate issue of guilt, we review the district court’s finding to determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Bales, 813 F.2d 1289, 1293 (4th Cir. 1987). After examining the record in this case, we hold that the district court’s finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. At trial, the government produced evidence that Miss Lockhart presented the threat in writing to management at a Food Lion grocery store. The government also showed that Lockhart was aware that law enforcement investigated her threats because she was visited by Secret Service agents after making threats in the past. Before finding Lockhart guilty, the district court stated: Here you went to the trouble to get an audience with people in responsible positions at the Food Lion, and had with you a document that you apparently had previously prepared. And there is no doubt in my mind that at the time you delivered that to the personnel at Food Lion you knew that it would go up the chain of command, and that in due course it would wind up in the hands of law enforcement people, 1 In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence generally, Miss Lockhart claims specifically that the government failed to prove she had the intent to injure the President. For the reasons stated in part A above, we reject Miss Lockhart’s claim that the government must prove actual intent to injure the President. While proof of a present intent to injure the President is one way to satisfy the knowingly or willfully element of the offense, that element is also satisfied by proof that the defendant intended to incite others to injure the President or that the defendant intended to restrict the President’s movements. Patillo, 438 F.2d at 15-16. UNITED STATES v. LOCKHART 7 and that they would take it seriously and communicate it on up and down the line.2 As we noted in Patillo, the knowingly and willfully element may be satisfied by a showing that the defendant would reasonably anticipate that [the threat] would be transmitted to law enforcement officers and others charged with the security of the President. Patillo, 438 F.2d at 16. Given the evidence of Miss Lockhart’s past experience with the Secret Service, the district court’s finding that Miss Lockhart knew that in due course [the threat] would wind up in the hands of law enforcement is not clearly erroneous, and the guilty verdict is supported by substantial evidence.