United States v. Frankie Maybee, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16285

Background

Maybee was convicted after a jury trial of six counts for willfully causing bodily injury because of race, color, or national origin in violation of the Shepard-Byrd Act; sentence 135 months.
In June 2010, Maybee, Popejoy, and Simer pursued a sedan carrying Hispanic men after racist taunts at a gas station in Alpena, Arkansas.
Maybee discussed following the sedan to assault its occupants and stated intent to beat the Mexicans; the trio fashioned a plan and drove after them.
Maybee rammed the sedan multiple times with his truck; the sedan crashed and occupants were injured; after the crash, Maybee did not render aid.
Popejoy and Simer testified that Maybee used racial epithets and threatened violence; Maybee admitted seeing the car and later claimed the crash, denying involvement.
Popejoy pled guilty to conspiracy and a Shepard-Byrd count; Simer and Popejoy testified at trial; district court denied a motion for new trial and the government introduced photos of the wreck.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 249(a)(1) under Thirteenth Amendment	Maybee argues § 249(a)(1) is unconstitutional based on Bledsoe/Allen/Nelson readings requiring two elements.	Government argues Congress has authority to reach badges and incidents of slavery, supporting § 249(a)(1).	Constitutionality upheld; no plain error in the statute under the Thirteenth Amendment analysis.
Sufficiency of the evidence for race-based motive	Maybee contends no reasonable jury could find race/national-origin motive given independent provocation.	Government cites racial epithets, intent to assault, and post-crash statements as substantial motive.	Sufficient evidence supported a reasonable jury finding race-based motive for all counts.
Willfulness and agreement to cause injuries	Maybee argues participants acted recklessly rather than willfully; claims lack of agreement.	Government shows planning, exhortations, and pit maneuver designed to cause loss of control.	Evidence supports willful agreement and willfulness in causing injuries.
Denial of a new trial	Maybee claims district court abused discretion relying on credibility and trial photographs to inflame jurors.	Government asserts district court properly evaluated credibility and admitted photographs for relevant purposes.	No abuse of discretion; denial of new trial affirmed.
Minor role adjustment at sentencing	Maybee contends he was a minor participant deserving a § 3B1.2(b) adjustment.	Government argues extensive control by Maybee; no plain error in denying adjustment.	No error, much less plain error; no sua sponte minor role adjustment.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Bledsoe, 728 F.2d 1094 (8th Cir. 1984) (held that willful injury because of race can be a badge of slavery for § 245(b)(2)(B) purposes)
United States v. Allen, 341 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2003) (similar rationale on badges of slavery and racial motivation)
United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2002) (two-element approach to constitutionality under Thirteenth Amendment; not necessarily in all cases required)
Honarvar, 477 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2007) (sufficiency standard for reviewing evidence in criminal convictions)
United States v. Ramos-Torres, 187 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 1999) (use of plain-error review; scope of post-trial challenges)
United States v. Nichols, 151 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 1998) (plain-error standard and limited review on unraised issues)
United States v. LeGrand, 468 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 33 motions; miscarriage of justice limit)
United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2001) (credibility assessment and appellate deference to district court findings)
United States v. Ruklick, 919 F.2d 95 (8th Cir. 1990) (non-merits-based address for undiscussed issues)
United States v. Rush-Richardson, 574 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for issues raised on appeal)
United States v. White, 241 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2001) (central role in offense and relative culpability considerations)
United States v. Morales, 445 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2006) (downward adjustment analysis for role in offense)