United States v. Checora
155 F. Supp. 3d 1192
D. Utah2015Background
- In June 2014 in Fort Duchesne, UT, defendant Grant Checora admitted firing a .22 pistol during a confrontation; an adult was killed and a juvenile wounded.
- A federal grand jury indicted Checora on four counts: second‑degree murder (18 U.S.C. § 1111/1153), § 924(c) firearm enhancement for use/discharge during a crime of violence (Count II), attempted murder (18 U.S.C. § 1113/1153) (Count III), and a second § 924(c) enhancement (Count IV).
- Checora moved to dismiss Counts II and IV, arguing murder and attempted murder cannot qualify as predicate “crimes of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).
- Legal question centers on whether § 924(c)(3)(A) (the force clause) or § 924(c)(3)(B) (the residual clause) renders murder and attempted murder predicate crimes of violence, especially post‑Johnson.
- The court held a pretrial hearing, considered whether to apply the categorical approach or a modified approach in the § 924(c) context, and evaluated recent authority distinguishing ACCA/Johnson decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second‑degree murder qualifies as a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3)(A) (force clause) | Gov: unlawful killing necessarily involves physical (violent) force and thus satisfies the force clause. | Checora: § 1111(a)’s malice variants include reckless and non‑forceful means; categorical approach shows overbreadth so murder is not categorically a crime of violence. | Court: Denied dismissal — second‑degree murder can qualify; conduct element (unlawful killing) involves physical force; apply modified categorical analysis for malice variants and instruct jury. |
| Whether attempted murder qualifies under § 924(c)(3)(A) | Gov: attempted murder requires specific intent to kill and a substantial step, which is violent conduct satisfying force clause. | Checora: substantial step elements can encompass nonviolent acts; thus attempted murder need not be a crime of violence. | Court: Denied dismissal — attempted murder under § 1113 involves specific intent to kill and may qualify as a crime of violence. |
| Whether § 924(c)(3)(B) residual clause is void for vagueness after Johnson | Gov: § 924(c)(3)(B) differs materially from ACCA residual clause (applies to charged conduct, not past convictions) and is not unconstitutionally vague. | Checora: language similar enough to ACCA residual clause struck in Johnson; therefore § 924(c)(3)(B) is void. | Court: Denied dismissal — Johnson does not compel invalidation of § 924(c)(3)(B); here charged offenses can be evaluated for substantial risk of force. |
| Proper methodological approach for pretrial § 924(c) challenges (categorical vs. modified or factual inquiry) | Gov: categorical language supports element‑based analysis; but facts of charged case make jury decisional role appropriate. | Checora: categorical approach requires looking to least‑culpable conduct, which defeats § 924(c) predicates here. | Court: Applied categorical/modified categorical approaches but emphasized limits pretrial; concluded jury will resolve factual disputes and the indictment sufficiently notifies defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual‑clause vagueness decision)
- Castleman v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014) (poisoning qualifies as use of physical force)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (categorical/modified categorical approach framework)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (interpretation of crime‑of‑violence language)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (foundational categorical‑approach authority)
- United States v. Barrett, 797 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2015) (discussion of malice aforethought varieties under § 1111)
- United States v. Castro‑Gomez, 792 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2015) (attempted murder qualifies as crime of violence under Guidelines)
- United States v. Armijo, 651 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2011) (mens rea of recklessness insufficient for some "crime of violence" definitions)
- United States v. Serafin, 562 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing § 924(c) from ACCA and Guideline provisions)