United States v. David Runyon
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4167
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Runyon was convicted at trial of conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire (Count One), carjacking resulting in death (Count Two), and murder with a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (Count Five), after a Codefendant Plea by Cat and joint trial with Draven.
- The Navy officer Cory Voss was murdered in Newport News, Virginia, April 30, 2007; evidence tied Runyon to planning and executing the killing for money.
- The FDPA capital-sentencing framework applied; the jury found eligibility for death and, in the penalty phase, unanimously found multiple aggravators and mitigating factors before recommending death on Counts One and Five and life on Count Two.
- The district court substituted jurors during the penalty phase; Runyon objected to substitutions and asserted various sentencing-stage errors.
- Runyon challenged the constitutionality of Counts One and Two, the sufficiency of the jurisdictional evidence for Count One, the admission and impact of an interrogation video, numerous aggravators and victim-impact evidence, prosecutorial comments, and jury-instruction and cumulative-error issues; the Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The panel held the murder-for-hire and carjacking statutes constitutional under the Commerce Clause and valid as to the jurisdictional element, and found the sentencing-phase errors harmless or non-reversible, affirming the death sentences and related judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Counts One and Two constitutional under the Commerce Clause? | Runyon argues statutes exceed Congress's powers. | Runyon argues expanded scope burdens federalism and overbreadth. | Statutes valid; commerce power supports both counts. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to satisfy the jurisdictional element of Count One? | Prosecution lacked proof Runyon traveled in interstate commerce to kill. | Travel in a personal vehicle suffices; evidence insufficient. | Sufficient evidence; crossing state lines and related items supported jurisdiction. |
| Was the interrogation video properly admitted and harmless for lack of remorse and equally culpable mitigator? | Video properly rebutted mitigators and showed lack of remorse. | Video contained inflammatory ethnicity/religion references and violated rights. | Admission flawed due to ethnicity/religion references; harmless error under Chapman. |
| Did victim-impact and other nonstatutory aggravators conform to the FDPA and Eighth Amendment limits? | Victim impact and defendant's background evidence fit within permissible aggravators. | Some evidence invades policy limits and is improperly prejudicial. | Nonstatutory aggravators properly noticed and supported; some evidentiary challenges rejected as within discretion. |
| Did prosecutorial comments and jury instructions undermine due process or contribute to error warranting reversal? | remarks improperly influenced the sentencing decision and violated rights. | Comments were reversible errors or prejudicial. | Any errors were harmless; no reversal warranted; cumulative-error claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995) (Commerce Clause limits upheld for instrumentalities of interstate commerce)
- United States v. Cobb, 144 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 1998) (express jurisdictional element satisfies minimal nexus; instrumentality doctrine)
- United States v. Lentz, 383 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2004) (personal travel between states supports interstate transport element)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (standard for appellate review of evidence in sentencing phase)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991) (victim-impact evidence permitted to reflect broader loss and society interest)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1974) (prosecutorial closing arguments must not render trial unfair)
- United States v. Williams, 461 F.3d 441 (4th Cir. 2006) (harmless-error standard in closing arguments Chapman framework)
- O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (Harmless error standard for nonpreserved errors in capital cases)
- United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2003) (evidentiary rulings and aggravation/mitigation standards in FDPA)