United States v. Kenneth Bailey, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6643
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- On April 17, 2014, after crashing his car following a police pursuit, Kenneth Lee Bailey fled the scene and approached Devin Watkins, who was sitting in his pickup truck in a McDonald’s parking lot.
- Watkins testified Bailey asked for a ride, was refused, then climbed into the truck, placed a “cold and hard” object at the back of Watkins’s neck, and ordered “Drive, drive, drive, drive.” Watkins jumped out and Bailey drove off.
- No witness, including police and a passenger who accompanied Bailey earlier, saw Bailey with a weapon; the government did not press on appeal that a weapon was actually possessed.
- A jury convicted Bailey of carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119; the district court sentenced him to 105 months’ imprisonment. Bailey appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of the specific intent required by § 2119.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed whether evidence supported a rational finding that Bailey had the unconditional or conditional intent to kill or seriously harm the driver at the precise moment he took control of the truck.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported § 2119 mens rea (intent to kill or seriously harm, conditional or unconditional) | Bailey: evidence was insufficient to prove he intended to kill or seriously harm Watkins if necessary | Government: Bailey’s reckless flight, desperate conduct, forcible entry, placing a hard object to Watkins’s neck, and commands supported a reasonable inference of conditional intent | Reversed conviction — evidence insufficient under Holloway; at most an intimidating bluff without proof of weapon or credible threat at the moment of taking control |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1999) (holding an empty threat or bluff, standing alone, does not satisfy § 2119’s specific intent requirement and requiring inquiry into defendant’s state of mind at the precise moment of taking the car)
- United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2007) (discussing conditional intent standard for § 2119)
- United States v. Wilson, 198 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 1999) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence framework for upholding jury verdicts)
- United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing admission-of-evidence issues from sufficiency review in carjacking context)