United States v. Corbert Goldtooth
754 F.3d 763
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- In July 2011, three armed men (including Appellants Goldtooth and Tsosie) approached two teens, Crawford and Davis, at a Navajo Nation gas station; weapons displayed included a baseball bat and knives.
- Crawford rolled cigarettes and offered them to the men; while handing cigarettes to the man with the bat, that man suddenly snatched a package of Tops tobacco from Crawford’s lap and the group left within seconds.
- Davis had a wallet (no money) in a back pocket; he was patted down quickly from the front and nothing was seized. Crawford had a wallet in his back pocket and a $175 smartphone in his front pocket, which the men did not take.
- Police stopped the vehicle shortly after; a long knife was found nearby, a pocket knife on Tsosie, and a weighted baseball bat in the car. Goldtooth admitted flipping gang colors and throwing a knife but did not mention money or wallets.
- Appellants were tried jointly and convicted on two counts of aiding and abetting robbery under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2111, 1153, and 2 — Count 1 (tobacco from Crawford) and Count 2 (money/wallet from Davis). The district court denied post-trial Rule 29 motions and sentenced Appellants; they appealed for insufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to support aiding-and-abetting conviction for taking Crawford’s tobacco (Count 1) | Government: jurors could infer Appellants aided or intended the snatch based on weapons, control of scene, patdowns, and conduct before/after | Appellants: no evidence of foreknowledge or participation in the snatch; taking was spontaneous by the snatcher | Reversed — insufficient evidence: no advance knowledge or conduct showing they aided or intended the snatch (Rosemond standard) |
| Sufficiency to support attempted robbery of Davis’s money/wallet (Count 2) | Government: patdown, question about having anything in pockets, and Davis’s testimony that he had a wallet support intent to take wallet/money | Appellants: they never asked for money/wallet, failed to search back pockets, did not take Crawford’s visible smartphone — inconsistent with intent to rob | Reversed — insufficient evidence of specific intent to take Davis’s wallet/money; attempted robbery requires specific intent and evidence only permits speculation |
| Whether attempted robbery under § 2111 requires specific intent | Government argued factual impossibility not a bar; attempted robbery still may be charged despite no money | Defendants argued attempted robbery requires specific intent to take property | Held: Attempted robbery under § 2111 requires specific intent to take property (court adopts analogy to attempted bank robbery precedents) |
| Retrial barred after reversal for insufficiency | Government: could seek retrial | Defendants: conviction insufficient; reversal equals acquittal | Held: Reversal for insufficiency is acquittal and bars retrial (McDaniel v. Brown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (aiding-and-abetting requires advance knowledge when accomplice use of weapon is at issue)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (two-step sufficiency review; protect against convictions no rational juror could reach)
- United States v. Darby, 857 F.2d 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (attempted bank robbery requires specific intent to take property)
- United States v. Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) (attempted bank robbery requires specific intent)
- United States v. Burdeau, 168 F.3d 352 (9th Cir. 1999) (comparison of § 2111 with bank robbery statute and intent discussion)
- United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2010) (reversal where conviction rests on impermissible speculation)
- McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (2010) (reversal for insufficiency equals acquittal and bars retrial)