56 F.4th 604
8th Cir.2022Background
- On October 12, 2017, Phillip Moore was forced at gunpoint (by Saul Crowe) to drive from a Walmart to the Ramkota Hotel; Saul brandished a handgun throughout.
- At the hotel, Ranson Long Pumpkin entered the van, dragged Moore from the driver’s seat and choked him to unconsciousness; Moses Crowe punched and later struck another witness; Saul drove the van away.
- The van was driven to Nike Road, where Moore was pulled out, beaten, and two shots were fired; shell casings at the scene matched firearms linked to Saul and Moses Crowe.
- A federal grand jury charged Long Pumpkin and Moses Crowe with carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury (18 U.S.C. § 2119(2)) and with using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)); Moses Crowe was also charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- A jury convicted Long Pumpkin and Moses Crowe on all counts; they appealed raising (1) Sixth Amendment confrontation-clause restrictions on cross-examination about two eyewitnesses’ drug use, (2) sufficiency of evidence for carjacking and aiding/abetting, (3) adequacy of § 924(c) aiding-and-abetting jury instruction on advance knowledge, and (4) sufficiency of evidence for the § 924(c) discharge enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation clause: exclusion of cross-examining eyewitnesses about drug use | Gov't: limiting drug-use questioning was required because the witnesses would invoke Fifth Amendment; restriction concerned collateral credibility only and did not preclude testing substantive testimony | Long Pumpkin & Crowe: excluding questions about drug use and its effect on perception/memory violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights | Court: No violation; the limits targeted collateral credibility and defendants had alternative means (stipulation offered, questions about each other, other impeachment) and were not prevented from testing substantive matters they actually proffered |
| Sufficiency of evidence for carjacking (timing of "taking") | Gov't: a reasonable jury could find the taking occurred at the Ramkota Hotel when defendants removed and incapacitated Moore | Crowe: any taking occurred earlier at the Walmart (Saul had constructive control) so Crowe did not commit the carjacking at the hotel | Court: Affirmed convictions; reasonable jury could find the taking occurred at the hotel (or a second taking occurred there) and that Crowe aided/abetted by punching Moore |
| Adequacy of aiding-and-abetting instruction for § 924(c) (advance knowledge) | Gov't: the instruction given adequately required advance knowledge and the ability to withdraw, satisfying Rosemond standard | Crowe: instruction failed to require a finding of advance knowledge Saul would use/discharge a firearm | Court: Instruction was adequate; jury was told defendant must have had enough advance knowledge to walk away before completion of offense |
| Sufficiency for § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) discharge enhancement (firearm discharged “during” carjacking) | Gov't: discharge at Nike Road occurred while carjacking continued (control over victim/car persisted), so discharge enhancement applies | Defendants: shooting occurred after the carjacking was complete; only basic § 924(c) (use) is supported | Court: Rejected discharge enhancement—holding carjacking was complete before shots fired (per Petruk principle); vacated § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) convictions and reduced them to § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) convictions; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 915 F.2d 359 (8th Cir. 1990) (balance Sixth Amendment confrontation right with witness Fifth Amendment privilege)
- Ellis v. Black, 732 F.2d 650 (8th Cir. 1984) (distinguishing collateral credibility limits from limits on substantive cross-examination)
- United States v. Rubin, 836 F.2d 1096 (8th Cir. 1988) (Confrontation right violated when defendant cannot test truth and accuracy of witness’s direct testimony)
- United States v. Singer, 785 F.2d 228 (8th Cir. 1986) (alternative means of inquiry preserve confrontation rights)
- United States v. Wright, 246 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir. 2001) (timing of taking in carjacking can be a jury question)
- United States v. Petruk, 781 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2015) (carjacking completes when initial control of vehicle is secured; crime does not necessarily continue thereafter)
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) (aider-and-abettor must have advance knowledge of a confederate’s firearm use to be guilty under § 924(c))
- United States v. Bryant, 913 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2019) (strangulation causing unconsciousness satisfies § 2119(2) serious bodily injury)