United States v. Larry Whitfield
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17762
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Whitfield and McCoy attempted a bank robbery at Fort Financial Credit Union; their escape led to a heart attack death of Mrs. Parnell during a later residence invasion.
- Whitfield was indicted on four counts: Counts One–Three (bank robbery, conspiracy to use a firearm, and use of a firearm) and Count Four (§ 2113(e) with two alleged offenses: killing and forced accompaniment).
- Count Four originally alleged only killing and forced accompaniment, omitting the death-result offense, creating potential indictment-structure issues.
- The district court later instructed the jury on the death-results offense, prompting Whitfield to challenge constructive amendment risks and the scope of Count Four.
- Whitfield moved to suppress two post-arrest confessions (Belmont home break-ins) as involuntary; the court denied suppression for the first part but suppressed the bank robbery confession as coerced.
- After a trial and mid-trial suppression, the jury convicted Whitfield on Counts One–Three and Count Four’s forced-accompaniment theory; he was sentenced to life on Count Four and concurrent 240-months on Counts One–Two with 60-months on Count Three.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in the Count Four instructions about forced accompaniment. | Whitfield: instruction misaligned with Count Four; death- results part unindicted. | Whitfield: rating on Count Four should match grand-jury allegations. | Constructive amendment vacated; forced accompaniment conviction retained; death-results offense vacated. |
| Whether the death results offense was unconstitutionally added to Count Four. | Whitfield: death results is unindicted element; improper amendment. | Government: death results element justified under §2113(e). | Death results offense vacated; remand for conviction on forced accompaniment only. |
| Plain error in not instructing on a lesser-included offense §2113(d). | Whitfield: §2113(d) should have been included. | Government: error non-prejudicial. | No plain error affecting substantial rights; ongoing conviction unaffected. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict on forced accompaniment. | Whitfield: no proof of coercive force to accompany; only guiding. | Gov: conduct satisfied forced-accompaniment elements. | Evidence sufficient; however, Count Four death-portion vacated; remand for resentence on forced accompaniment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1965) (lesser included offense concept applied to conspiracy/inputs)
- Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1999) (death results as separate offense element in carjacking)
- Turner, 389 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2004) (§2113(d) as lesser-included offense of §2113(e))
- Floresca, 38 F.3d 706 (4th Cir. 1994) (constructive amendment vs indictment error analysis)
- Higgs v. United States, 353 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2003) (indictment error vs constructive amendment distinction)
- Ashley, 606 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2010) (indictment errors and harmlessness review in variance/constructive amendments)
- Redd, 161 F.3d 793 (4th Cir. 1998) (variance standards in indictment versus proof)
- Perry, 560 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2009) (disjunctive charging and jury instruction practice)
- Lentz, 524 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2008) (death-results element context; constructive amendment)
- Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard)