993 F.3d 1054
8th Cir.2021Background
- On Oct. 22–23, 2017 JB’s black Honda was carjacked at gunpoint; her phone later tracked to an address next to the residence where Wright was visiting Rupp.
- Wright and Rupp used JB’s stolen Honda to drive to a Sprint store; they robbed the store as Ford (in a van) waited. Security footage showed Wright and Rupp enter and leave but did not show a gun.
- Police stopped Ford’s van after the robbery; officers recovered a loaded black Smith & Wesson .40-caliber handgun from the van and dozens of stolen phones and cash. Ford testified Wright handled the gun and tossed it in the van.
- Facebook evidence showed Wright with camouflage, masks, and multiple handguns (including a .40 S&W), and chat messages referencing trading a “40.” JB later identified Wright in a photo lineup as the carjacker.
- Wright pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act robbery/conspiracy (Hobbs counts) but was tried and convicted by a jury of carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119), two § 924(c) firearm counts, and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (§ 922(g)). The district court denied motions for acquittal/new trial and applied sentencing enhancements; Wright appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of social-media and chat exhibits (Exs.14,16,17,21,29–32) | Exhibits were irrelevant, cumulative, unfairly prejudicial, hearsay, and improperly 404(b) evidence | Exhibits were relevant to identity, gun ownership/possession, and association with co-defendant; much evidence was intrinsic/contextual and non-hearsay when used to frame Wright’s statements | No abuse of discretion; exhibits admissible as relevant and largely intrinsic/contextual evidence |
| Jury instruction on carjacking intent (§ 2119) | Instruction misstated intent requirement (Wright urged Holloway was wrong) | Instruction tracked Holloway and Eighth Circuit precedent | Instruction proper; followed Supreme Court law; no basis for new trial |
| Jury instruction on “carried a firearm” (§ 924(c)) | “Carry” should not include transporting a firearm in a vehicle; instructions were possibly confusing | Controlling precedent (Muscarello, Freisinger, Eighth Circuit model) treats vehicle transport as carrying; jury was told firearm must be "in relation to" the crime | Instruction proper and not misleading; vehicle transport can constitute carrying a firearm under § 924(c) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for carjacking and firearm counts | JB’s identification was unreliable; Ford’s testimony and other evidence were weak or conflicting | Multiple corroborating items: Ford’s testimony, gun recovered, Facebook images/chats, phone trace to vicinity, matching description (mask/camouflage), and temporal/associational evidence | Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the court found sufficient evidence to support convictions; acquittal denied |
| Sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A) (3–7 firearms) | Photos could show same firearm; insufficient proof of 3+ firearms | Photos and evidence showed multiple distinct firearms across posts and at sentencing | No clear error in finding 3–7 firearms; two-level enhancement affirmed |
| Sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5) (carjacking offense characteristic) | Application double-counted carjacking because base robbery guideline already applied | §2B3.1 applies to robbery generally; (b)(5) specifically increases for carjacking—Sentencing Commission intended separate adjustment; sister circuits agree | No impermissible double counting; two-level carjacking adjustment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1999) (describing § 2119 intent requirement)
- Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) ("carry" includes firearms in vehicle)
- United States v. Brooks, 715 F.3d 1069 (8th Cir. 2013) (photos/videos of defendant with firearm admissible and probative)
- United States v. Jackson, 913 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2019) (intrinsic evidence doctrine; videos linking defendant to firearms admissible)
- United States v. Huyck, 849 F.3d 432 (8th Cir. 2017) (Rule 403 unfair-prejudice standard)
- Manning v. United States, 738 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2014) (online chat responses admissible for context, not hearsay)
- United States v. Freisinger, 937 F.2d 383 (8th Cir. 1991) (transporting firearm in vehicle satisfies "carry")
- United States v. Naves, 252 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 2001) (applying § 2B3.1(b)(5) carjacking characteristic does not impermissibly double count)