United States v. John Glenn Bartley
711 F. App'x 127
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Glenn Bartley was convicted by a jury of three counts of stalking under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) and one count of interstate travel to violate a protective order under 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(1). He received a 71-month sentence.
- On appeal Bartley challenged: (1) admission of his former fiancée’s testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and 403; (2) the district court’s refusal to adopt his proposed definition of “harassment”; (3) sufficiency of the evidence for the § 2262(a)(1) interstate-travel conviction; and (4) an upward Guidelines departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3 for extreme psychological injury to the victim.
- The contested 404(b) evidence was offered for non-propensity purposes (e.g., intent, plan, absence of mistake) and was evaluated for relevance, necessity, reliability, and prejudice under Rule 403.
- The jury instruction dispute concerned whether “harass/harassment” must be conduct directly received by the victim (Bartley’s view) or could include conduct directed at third parties intended to cause the victim distress (government’s view).
- The sufficiency review asked whether a rational jury could find the interstate-travel element beyond a reasonable doubt based on the trial evidence.
- Sentencing dispute: the court applied a one-level upward departure under § 5K2.3 for extreme psychological injury; Bartley argued the court made no adequate findings and the extent of the departure was unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bartley) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of 404(b) testimony | Testimony was unfairly prejudicial and offered to show propensity | Testimony admissible for non-propensity purposes (motive, intent, plan) and not outweighed by prejudice | District court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible under Rules 404(b) and 403 |
| Jury instruction on "harassment" | "Harassment" must be words/conduct the victim directly received/observed; omission impaired defense | "Harassment" may be directed at third parties if intended to annoy, alarm, or cause substantial emotional distress to the victim | Court properly instructed that conduct aimed at third parties could support stalking so long as intent to cause the victim distress was proven beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 2262(a)(1) interstate-travel conviction | Evidence insufficient to prove interstate travel to violate protective order | Trial evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution supports conviction | Evidence was sufficient; a rational juror could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Upward departure for extreme psychological injury (§ 5K2.3) | Sentencing court failed to make findings comparing injury to ordinary consequences; extent of departure unreasonable | Sentencing court made adequate findings; departure and extent reasonable | Court did not abuse its discretion in applying § 5K2.3 or in the extent of the departure |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hall, 858 F.3d 254 (4th Cir.) (standards for admitting other-acts evidence and Rule 404(b) analysis)
- United States v. Sterling, 860 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) relevance, necessity, reliability framework)
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir.) (balancing probative value against unfair prejudice under Rule 403)
- United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Hager, 721 F.3d 167 (4th Cir.) (when failure to give requested instruction is reversible error)
- United States v. Osinger, 753 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.) (stalking conviction upheld where defendant targeted victim and third parties to cause distress)
- United States v. Petrovic, 701 F.3d 849 (8th Cir.) (stalking conviction upheld for sending explicit material to victim’s contacts)
- United States v. Robinson, 855 F.3d 265 (4th Cir.) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard on appeal)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentences)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir.) (review of departures for reasonableness)
- United States v. Gary, 18 F.3d 1123 (4th Cir.) (deference to district court on upward departure for psychological injury)