United States v. Stefanik
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6035
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Stefanik, a 60-year-old pro se appellant, challenged a one-count conviction for threatening a United States official under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B).
- The challenged threats occurred during two phone calls to the First Circuit clerk’s office after he received a notice about dismissing his appeals for failure to pay fees or show pauper status.
- Perry, a supervisor, and Dowling, a case manager, were the recipients who felt fear and reported the conduct to authorities.
- The jury found Stefanik guilty after a three-day trial.
- On appeal, Stefanik argues insufficiency of evidence, a flawed jury instruction on ‘intimidate,’ and failure to grant a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
- The First Circuit affirms, rejecting each challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence under § 115(a)(1)(B) | Stefanik claims remarks were rude but not threatening. | Statements were not reasonably understood as threats by Perry. | Evidence could support a reasonable belief of a threat. |
| Jury instruction on 'intimidate' | Definition was unnecessary and improper. | Definitional instruction helped jurors understand 'intimidate'. | Instruction properly defined 'intimidate' and was not reversible error. |
| Downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility | Stefanik admitted the remarks and sought reduction. | Trial conduct showed lack of acceptance of responsibility. | No clear error in denial; not a rare situation warranting reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nishnianidze, 342 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2003) (objective standard for threats; recipient impact considered)
- United States v. Fulmer, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st Cir. 1997) (threats need not be carried out to be punished; intent to impede suffices)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (S. Ct. 2008) (ordinary meaning used when statute is undefined)
- Wright v. Marshall, 656 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2011) (charge viewed as a whole; avoid isolated definitions)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (contextual review of instructional error)
- United States v. Carrasco, 540 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2008) (de novo review of sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Azubike, 564 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2009) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to the government)
- United States v. Laurent, 607 F.3d 895 (1st Cir. 2010) (pattern jury instructions relied upon)