FURL J. WILLIAMS, ARTHUR TERENCE BULLOCK, and MARTEESE NORMAN v. UNITED STATES
113 A.3d 554
| D.C. | 2015Background
- Three defendants (Williams, Bullock, Norman) were convicted of robbery after Loi Chau, a Vietnamese-speaking hotel employee with limited English, surrendered his wallet on a D.C. street at night and later identified the three men.
- Chau testified the three approached him, said only “what, what, what,” and he feared they might have weapons though he saw none; on cross-examination he also said they did not threaten or touch him and there was no money in his wallet.
- Bystander Samuel Hart and officers observed the three leave with Chau’s wallet; police stopped and detained the three, recovered Chau’s Metro card in a defendant’s pocket and Chau’s wallet nearby.
- The trial court denied defendants’ motions for judgment of acquittal, concluding the totality of circumstances (closeness, surrounding arc, conduct, and acceptance of the wallet) supported robbery.
- On appeal the court reviewed sufficiency of the evidence and focused on whether the government proved the robbery element “violence or putting [the victim] in fear.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence proved "violence or putting in fear" for robbery | Gov: defendants surrounded Chau, asked for money, accepted wallet, and their conduct would create a reasonable fear in a person of ordinary sensibility | Defs: Chau did not report threats, saw no weapons, testified defendants did not threaten or touch him; words were equivocal (“what, what”); evidence requires speculation | Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove the objective fear/intimidation element beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Motion to sever (Williams & Bullock) | Gov argued joinder was proper (common events/actors) | Defs argued prejudicial spillover required severance | Not reached on merits (court resolved case on sufficiency) |
| Motion to suppress (Williams & Bullock) | Gov: stops and recoveries lawful | Defs: challenged stops/searches | Not reached on merits |
| Juror dismissal (Norman) | Gov: dismissal proper | Norman: dismissal was abuse of discretion | Not reached on merits; court addressed only sufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. United States, 67 A.3d 547 (D.C. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Lattimore v. United States, 684 A.2d 357 (D.C. 1996) (elements of robbery include larceny and assault; listing robbery elements)
- Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125 (D.C. 2001) (evidence must allow a rational jury to infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; forbids speculation)
- Parks v. United States, 627 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1993) ("putting in fear" requires menacing conduct and purposeful design to engender fear)
- In re D.R., 96 A.3d 45 (D.C. 2014) (intent-to-frighten assault requires threatening act causing reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm)
- Dublin v. United States, 388 A.2d 461 (D.C. 1978) (government must prove victim was put in fear at the time of the taking)
- Spencer v. State, 30 A.3d 891 (Md. 2011) (no intimidation where defendant gave no words or conduct reasonably suggesting imminent force)
- Ketchum v. United States, 550 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2008) (intimidation may be inferred from acts or verbal demands in teller-robbery context)
- Gilmore v. United States, 282 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2002) (unequivocal written or verbal demands can satisfy intimidation in bank-robbery cases)