United States v. Steve Smith ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    Argued October 10, 2019             Decided February 25, 2020
    No. 18-3010
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    APPELLEE
    v.
    STEVE JAMAL SMITH, ALSO KNOWN AS JABRAIL LOVE,
    APPELLANT
    Consolidated with 18-3016
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia
    (No. 1:17-cr-00116-01)
    (No. 1:17-cr-00116-02)
    Sandra G. Roland, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
    argued the cause for appellants. With her on the joint brief were
    A. J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender, and Mary E. Davis.
    Thomas Abbenante, appointed by the court, entered an
    appearance.
    Eric Hansford, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause
    for appellee. With him on the brief were Jessie K. Liu, U.S.
    Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman and Suzanne G. Curt,
    Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
    2
    Before: HENDERSON, GRIFFITH, and MILLETT, Circuit
    Judges.
    Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.
    GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: A jury convicted Steve Jamal
    Smith and John King Lionell of conspiracy to commit bank
    robbery by intimidation. Because the evidence amply supports
    their convictions, we affirm.
    I
    A
    A grand jury indicted Smith and Lionell for bank robbery
    and conspiracy to commit bank robbery under 18 U.S.C.
    §§ 371 and 2113(a). Following a two-day trial, a petit jury
    convicted them of conspiracy. As to the substantive robbery
    charge, the jury acquitted Smith and deadlocked over Lionell,
    whom the government elected not to retry.
    The evidence at trial established that around 1:50 p.m. on
    January 27, 2016, Smith and Lionell entered a Washington,
    D.C. branch of BB&T Bank. They feigned interest in opening
    an account and spoke with the bank manager in the lobby about
    how to do so. While the defendants ostensibly mulled over their
    options, the bank manager returned to his office. Once the
    manager was out of sight, Smith and Lionell approached the
    tellers. Smith began chatting with the first teller, while Lionell
    showed the second teller a note that read: “Give me all your
    money. 100s, 50s and 20s only.” Trial Tr. 37:23-24 (Nov. 7,
    2017). Startled, the teller immediately activated the bank’s
    silent alarm but then “froze,” even though she had been trained
    to obey a robber’s demands. 
    Id. at 40:20-23.
    Lionell hounded
    3
    her, “What are you doing? What are you doing? What are you
    doing?” 
    Id. at 39:5-6.
    But the teller said nothing. At trial, she
    testified that she was so “scared” she “couldn’t even move,” let
    alone speak. 
    Id. at 40:23-24.
    When the bank manager came to
    see whether the defendants needed more help, Lionell told
    Smith it was “time to go.” 
    Id. at 39:14.
    They left the bank
    without any cash, jumped the turnstile at the nearby Columbia
    Heights Metro station, and took the train to Silver Spring,
    Maryland.
    They stopped and chatted briefly in a diner next to a branch
    of Capital One Bank. Around 2:30 p.m., the defendants decided
    to try their luck at Capital One. This time, Smith took the lead
    while Lionell stood nearby, keeping watch and staring at the
    teller. Smith showed the teller a note with bill denominations
    and repeatedly demanded, “Give me the money.” Trial Tr. 12:1
    (Nov. 8, 2017). At first, the teller “thought it was a change
    order that he needed,” but once she “realized it was a robbery,”
    she was “scared.” 
    Id. at 8:24,
    18:18-20. The teller tried to hand
    over the cash as instructed by bank protocol, but Smith ordered
    her to keep her arms raised, preventing her from reaching the
    money or the alarm. After a brief stand-off, the defendants
    again fled the bank empty-handed.
    B
    The jury found Smith and Lionell guilty of conspiracy to
    commit bank robbery by intimidation. They timely appealed on
    the ground that the government’s evidence was insufficient to
    support their convictions. The district court had jurisdiction
    under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1291. “[W]e review the evidence of record de novo,
    considering that evidence in the light most favorable to the
    government, and affirm a guilty verdict where ‘any rational
    trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
    4
    crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Wahl, 
    290 F.3d 370
    , 375 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia,
    
    443 U.S. 307
    , 319 (1979)).
    II
    A defendant is guilty of conspiracy when (1) he “enter[s]
    into an agreement with at least one other person to commit a
    specific offense”; (2) he “knowingly participate[s] in the
    conspiracy with the intent to commit the offense”; and (3) a
    member of the conspiracy commits “at least one overt act . . .
    in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Gatling, 
    96 F.3d 1511
    , 1518 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The government need not
    prove the agreement by direct evidence, as it may be “inferred
    from the facts and circumstances of the case.” Iannelli v.
    United States, 
    420 U.S. 770
    , 777 n.10 (1975).
    A defendant is guilty of bank robbery when he, “by force
    and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take,
    from the person or presence of another, . . . any property or
    money . . . belonging to, or in the care, custody, management,
    or possession of, any bank.” 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Here, the
    government did not assert that Smith and Lionell conspired to
    rob “by force and violence,” but rather “by intimidation.”
    Intimidation means “conduct reasonably calculated to put
    another in fear, or conduct and words calculated to create the
    impression that any resistance or defiance by the individual
    would be met by force.” United States v. Carr, 
    946 F.3d 598
    ,
    602 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation
    omitted).
    Because the jury convicted Smith and Lionell of
    conspiracy, the government need not prove that the defendants
    actually engaged in intimidation, only that they agreed to do
    so. As both sides acknowledge, the best evidence in this case
    5
    of whether Smith and Lionell entered into an unlawful
    agreement is their joint conduct during the robberies. See Smith
    Br. 13 (“[T]he government failed to present any evidence that
    appellants had agreed to do anything other than what they
    actually did.”); Gov’t Br. 8 (“[W]e agree that the issue
    ultimately turns on whether appellants’ actions in the two
    banks rose to intimidation . . . .”).
    Their conduct amply supports the jury’s finding that Smith
    and Lionell agreed to rob by intimidation. In the first bank,
    Smith distracted one teller while Lionell handed another a note
    commanding, “Give me all your money.” In the second bank,
    Lionell kept watch while Smith ordered the teller not only to
    “[g]ive [them] the money,” but also to keep her hands in the
    air. As other circuits have recognized, demands for cash can,
    under certain circumstances, “carry with them an implicit
    threat: if the money is not produced, harm to the teller or other
    bank employee may result.” United States v. Gilmore, 
    282 F.3d 398
    , 402 (6th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Clark, 
    227 F.3d 771
    , 773, 775 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that, when the
    robber announced “this is a hold up,” the teller could
    “reasonabl[y] . . . suspect and fear that [the robber] might use
    physical force to compel satisfaction of his demand for
    money”).
    Importantly, both tellers testified that they were, in fact,
    intimidated. See, e.g., Trial Tr. 38:20 (Nov. 7, 2017) (“I was
    scared. I mean, I freaked out . . . .”); 
    id. at 39:6-7
    (“I couldn’t
    even say nothing . . . .”); 
    id. at 40:23-24
    (“I was scared, I
    couldn’t even move.”); 
    id. at 57:9-10
    (“I felt scared, how
    anybody would be in that situation.”); Trial Tr. 8:24 (Nov. 8,
    2017) (“[I felt] scared.”). Although the test for intimidation is
    objective, a “teller’s feelings about the crime she experienced
    are ‘probative of whether a reasonable person would have been
    afraid under the same circumstances.’” 
    Clark, 227 F.3d at 775
                                    6
    (quoting United States v. Hill, 
    187 F.3d 698
    , 702 (7th Cir.
    1999)); see also United States v. Hendricks, 
    921 F.3d 320
    , 329
    (2d Cir. 2019); 
    Gilmore, 282 F.3d at 403
    ; cf. United States v.
    Davis, 
    635 F.3d 1222
    , 1226 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (explaining that a
    “victim’s perception . . . may be relevant” to whether the
    defendant “objective[ly]” created the impression of possessing
    a dangerous weapon (emphasis and internal quotation marks
    omitted)). Indeed, Smith and Lionell arguably thwarted their
    own robberies by being too intimidating. The first teller was so
    scared that she froze. And the second teller was sufficiently
    frightened that she obeyed Smith’s demand to keep her hands
    in the air, even though it prevented her from following bank
    protocol and giving him the money he demanded.
    Every circuit that has been presented with a similar
    combination of facts—that is, written and oral demands for
    money combined with efforts to control the teller’s physical
    movements and evidence that the teller was afraid—has
    affirmed the bank robbery conviction. See, e.g., 
    Gilmore, 282 F.3d at 402
    (affirming convictions where the defendant
    presented demand notes and issued commands like “Hurry
    up”); 
    Clark, 227 F.3d at 775
    (affirming a conviction where the
    defendant gave the teller a demand note and stated “Yes,
    Ma’am, this is a holdup.”); United States v. McCarty, 
    36 F.3d 1349
    , 1357-58 (5th Cir. 1994) (affirming a conviction where
    the defendant did not speak to the teller but handed her a note
    reading, “Be calm. This is a robbery.”); United States v. Lucas,
    
    963 F.2d 243
    , 244 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming a conviction
    where the defendant displayed a note reading, “Give me all
    your money, put all your money in the bag.”); United States v.
    Henson, 
    945 F.2d 430
    , 439 (1st Cir. 1991) (affirming a
    conviction where the defendant did not speak to the teller but
    handed her “a note directing her to ‘put fifties and twenties into
    an envelope now!!’”); United States v. Graham, 
    931 F.2d 1442
    ,
    1442-43 (11th Cir. 1991) (affirming a conviction where the
    7
    defendant did not speak to the teller but gave her a note reading,
    “This is a robbery. Please give me small, unmarked bills, touch
    off no alarms, and alert no one for at least ten minutes. Thank
    you.”); United States v. Hopkins, 
    703 F.2d 1102
    , 1103 (9th Cir.
    1983) (affirming a conviction where the defendant “spoke
    calmly, made no threats, . . . was clearly unarmed,” and gave
    the teller a note reading, “Give me all your hundreds, fifties and
    twenties. This is a robbery.”). Following the reasoning of our
    sister circuits, we find the facts here equally sufficient to prove
    conspiracy to rob by intimidation.
    Smith and Lionell object that their behavior did not
    establish an agreement to rob by intimidation because they
    “spoke in a conversational tone” and did not “raise their voices,
    display a weapon, make any threats, or make any threatening
    gestures.” Smith Br. 11. But none of those facts would prevent
    a jury from finding an agreement to intimidate. See, e.g., 
    Clark, 227 F.3d at 775
    (“No matter how one interprets [the
    defendant’s] manners as polite or non-violent, the combination
    of his actions still amount[s] to intimidation.”); 
    Henson, 945 F.2d at 439
    (affirming a robbery conviction “[a]lthough no
    weapon was displayed and no threat of bodily harm was
    expressed”); 
    Graham, 931 F.2d at 1443
    (affirming a conviction
    despite the robber’s impeccable manners and use of “please”
    and “thank you”); 
    Hopkins, 703 F.2d at 1103
    (affirming a
    conviction though the robber “spoke calmly” and “was clearly
    unarmed”).
    III
    Considering the record as a whole—including the
    defendants’ demands and the tellers’ fear—we conclude that
    8
    the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to convict
    Smith and Lionell. Accordingly, we affirm.
    So ordered.