United States v. Eric Woodberry
987 F.3d 1231
9th Cir.2021Background
- Two men (Woodberry and Johnson) robbed a licensed marijuana dispensary; police later arrested them and store employees identified them.
- Indicted for Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and related charges; Johnson also charged under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for possessing/brandishing a firearm and for use of a short‑barreled rifle; Woodberry charged as an aider/abettor for the firearm offense.
- District court instructed the jury that "the market for marijuana, including its intrastate aspects, is commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction," and that the Hobbs Act "commerce" element could be met if the robbery "could have" affected such commerce.
- The court also instructed the jury that it could find the rifle barrel was under 16 inches without any requirement that defendants knew the barrel length; defendants objected to omission of a knowledge element.
- Jury convicted on all counts; defendants appealed arguing erroneous jury instructions on the Hobbs Act commerce element and on mens rea for the short‑barreled rifle provision. Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction that the marijuana market (including intrastate sales) is commerce over which the U.S. has jurisdiction, and that the robbery "could have" affected commerce, was legally permissible | Gov't: Taylor permits treating intrastate marijuana activity as commerce and permits proof by category; no need to show actual effect | Johnson: Instruction misstated law; jury should have been required to find an actual effect on commerce; Taylor limited to drug dealers in its facts | Affirmed: Instruction consistent with Taylor and Raich; Congress may regulate intrastate marijuana commerce and proof that conduct falls within that category suffices; not a directed verdict on factual issues |
| Whether the short‑barreled‑rifle provision in § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) is an element that must be submitted to the jury under Alleyne | Gov't initially called it a sentencing "enhancement," but court: under Alleyne any fact that increases mandatory minimum is an element | Defendants argued variously about how the provision should be treated procedurally/substantively | Held: Under Alleyne the short‑barrel provision is an element that must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the short‑barreled‑rifle element requires proof of the defendant's knowledge of barrel length (mens rea) | Gov't: No separate mens rea required; statute passive and silent as to knowledge; Dean controls | Defendants: Staples presumption requires knowledge of facts making conduct illegal; jury should have been instructed on knowledge of barrel length | Held: No separate mens rea required; § 924(c)(1)(B)(i) contains no knowledge requirement—Dean and statutory structure control; Staples presumption inapplicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2074 (2016) (holding intrastate marijuana commerce falls within Congress's commerce power and that proof may be by category of conduct)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (Congress may regulate intrastate production/consumption of marijuana as part of interstate market)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum penalties are elements for the jury to find)
- Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009) (no separate mens rea required for § 924(c) discharge provision; passive phrasing and statutory structure inform intent requirement)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (presumption that mens rea is required when statute is silent, especially to avoid criminalizing otherwise innocent conduct)
- United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010) (multi‑factor test for determining whether penalty provisions are elements; rendered subordinate by Alleyne)
- United States v. Dominguez, 954 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2020) (Hobbs Act robbery is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c))
- United States v. McDuffy, 890 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing predicate facts that increase mandatory minimums and relationship to underlying convictions)