United States v. Wayne Maitland
690 F. App'x 181
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Wayne Ross Maitland was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 for kidnapping his infant stepson, CW, and received the 20-year statutory minimum sentence.
- Maitland drove CW from Texas to Louisiana, left the child outside a hospital on a cold night, then returned to Texas alone; he told CW’s mother, CH, “I’ve got your son now” before leaving.
- CH and Maitland testified differently about Maitland’s parental role; CH testified Maitland had no custodial rights, no final say in childrearing, and access only with her permission.
- At the time of the incident the couple were separated, had begun divorce proceedings, and Maitland did not live with CH or CW.
- Maitland argued he was acting in loco parentis (and thus exempt from kidnapping liability); the government argued he lacked parental status and committed kidnapping.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt Maitland was not acting in a parental capacity when he carried CW away.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant’s conduct is exempt from § 1201 as a parent or in loco parentis | Government: Maitland lacked parental status and committed kidnapping | Maitland: He acted in loco parentis and is therefore exempt from kidnapping liability | The court affirmed conviction—evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find he was not acting in loco parentis |
| Standard for review of sufficiency of evidence | Government: ordinary Jackson rational-jury standard applies | Maitland: disputed standard (not resolved) | Court applied and relied on the ordinary rational-jury standard and found evidence sufficient |
| Definition of in loco parentis and its applicability | Government: even if doctrine applies, facts did not meet it | Maitland: he performed parental duties toward CW | Assuming doctrine applies, the jury reasonably disbelieved Maitland’s claim and found he did not voluntarily perform parental duties |
| Weight of testimonial credibility between parties | Government: CH’s testimony undermines parental status | Maitland: contested CH’s account | Court deferred to jury credibility determinations and adopted CH’s version of events |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 553 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2008) (sets out the Jackson rational-jury sufficiency standard in this circuit)
- United States v. Floyd, 81 F.3d 1517 (10th Cir. 1996) (describes in loco parentis as performing parental duties and treats such persons as within a parental exemption)
- Miller v. United States, 123 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1941) (early recognition of in loco parentis as relevant to parental-exemption analysis)
- United States v. Kuhrt, 788 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2015) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes standard that evidence must be sufficient for any rational trier of fact to convict)