United States v. John Prickett, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18032
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- John Prickett, Jr. shot his wife multiple times in Buffalo River National Park; she survived.
- Prickett pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit murder (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1)) and to using a firearm during a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)).
- He moved to dismiss the § 924(c) count (Count II), arguing § 924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague post-Johnson.
- The district court denied the motion, concluding assault with intent to commit murder falls within § 924(c)(3)(B) and that § 924(c)(3)(B) is not void for vagueness.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the constitutionality de novo and affirmed, holding Johnson did not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson | § 924(c)(3)(B) is like the ACCA residual clause and suffers the same vagueness defects | § 924(c)(3)(B) is narrower and distinguishable from the ACCA residual clause; it gives adequate notice | § 924(c)(3)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague; motion to dismiss Count II denied |
| Whether assault with intent to murder qualifies as a § 924(c) "crime of violence" | (not contested) assault with intent to murder falls within § 924(c)(3)(B) | Assault with intent to murder is by its nature a crime involving substantial risk of use of physical force | Assault with intent to murder qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(B) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual-clause vagueness holding)
- United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of vagueness challenges)
- United States v. Moore, 38 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 1994) (categorical approach to § 924(c)(3)(B))
- United States v. Mills, 835 F.2d 1262 (8th Cir. 1987) (legislative history showing § 924(c) covers § 113 offenses)
- United States v. Taylor, 814 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2016) (upholding § 924(c)(3)(B) against vagueness challenge)
- Omar v. I.N.S., 298 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2002) (applying categorical approach)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (discussion of categorical analysis and ordinary-case inquiry)
- United States v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483 (1948) (observing that compounded uncertainties can render a law impermissibly vague)