United States v. Hopper (Polly)
663 F. App'x 665
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Polly Hopper traveled from New Mexico to Arkansas with Jessie Sr. and Jessie Jr., participated in a plan to bring Jessie Jr.'s estranged wife Melissa and their children back to New Mexico, and boarded the van after Melissa believed Polly was dead.
- Melissa was handcuffed, threatened with a sawed-off shotgun, transported across state lines, and held at the Hoppers’ property; she was later found by police and the men were arrested; Polly was present at several control points (waiting in rain, entering van, monitoring Melissa in restroom and parking lot).
- Police located Melissa after a ping from her phone; Polly alerted Jessie Sr. when officers arrived and was arrested at the scene.
- Indictment charged Polly with conspiracy to commit kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 371) and kidnapping/aiding and abetting kidnapping (18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1201); co-defendants included Jessie Sr. and Jessie Jr.; Jessie Jr. pleaded guilty and became a government witness.
- Jury convicted Polly on both counts; district court calculated a Guidelines range of 292–365 months and sentenced her to 292 months’ imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Hopper's Argument | Government's/Co-defendants' Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Hopper’s motion to sever | Hopper: joinder prejudiced her because graphic sexual-assault evidence against co-defendants would spill over and prevent fair consideration | Joinder proper under Rule 8(b); evidence admissible against Hopper for conspiracy and overt acts; jury instructions adequate | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; evidence was not admissible only against co-defendants and no serious risk of prejudicing Hopper’s specific rights (Rule 14/Zafiro) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) | Hopper: insufficient proof she agreed, knowingly joined, committed an overt act, or acted for mutual benefit | Circumstantial and direct evidence (planning statements, waiting in hiding, boarding van, monitoring Melissa, providing money, alerting father to police) show agreement, overt acts, and interdependence | Conviction affirmed — a rational juror could infer agreement, overt acts, and interdependence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201) / aiding and abetting | Hopper: government failed to prove ransom/reward/other purpose or that she acted knowingly and willfully to further the kidnapping | Evidence of purposeful detention, travel in interstate commerce, acts furthering the scheme (monitoring, preventing escape, assistance), and intent to facilitate the venture | Conviction affirmed — evidence sufficient to prove kidnapping and aiding-and-abetting liability |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Hopper: 292 months is greater than necessary given age, medical and intellectual impairments, history of abuse, and alleged minimal role/duress | Court considered §3553(a) factors, including medical/mental issues and role; sentence within correctly calculated Guidelines range | Sentence affirmed — within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable and Hopper failed to rebut presumption; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (district court’s severance analysis and Rule 14 standard)
- United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2009) (preference for joint trials; Rule 14 review)
- United States v. Clark, 717 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2013) (spillover prejudice insufficient for severance absent evidence only admissible against a co-defendant)
- United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2009) (elements of conspiracy: agreement, knowledge, voluntary involvement, interdependence)
- United States v. Carter, 130 F.3d 1432 (10th Cir. 1997) (inference of agreement from concerted actions and circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Gabaldon, 389 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2004) (kidnapping element: holding need only fulfill some purpose desired by captor)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentence review; reasonableness standard and deference to district court)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (district courts’ institutional advantage in §3553(a) determinations)