United States v. Wendy Moore
810 F.3d 932
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- In April 2013 investigators uncovered a murder-for-hire plot targeting Nancy Cannon (née Latham); Samuel Yenawine, Aaron Wilkinson, Wendy Moore, and Christopher Latham were implicated.
- Wilkinson cooperated with police, describing travel from Kentucky to South Carolina, meetings with Moore, cash payments, and a ‘‘hit packet’’ containing maps, photos, schedules, and personal information about the target.
- Forensic links tied the hit packet to Latham and Moore (photo on Latham’s phone; handwriting and printer/computer evidence tied to Moore and appellants’ devices). Yenawine later died by suicide in jail.
- A superseding indictment charged Moore and Latham under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) (the travel prong); Moore also faced solicitation and both faced a § 924(c) count. A jury convicted Moore on all counts and Latham on the § 1958(a) count; sentences were 180 and 120 months.
- On appeal, appellants argued the district court constructively amended the indictment by including the uncharged “facilities” prong of § 1958(a) in jury instructions, and that certain out-of-court statements and character evidence were wrongly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore/Latham) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive amendment via jury instructions | Two references to the uncharged “facilities” prong in the court’s § 1958 instruction broadened charges beyond the indictment | Instructions, verdict form, parties’ arguments and evidence made clear jury convicted only on charged travel prong | No constructive amendment — references were isolated and the totality of instructions and materials limited jury to travel prong |
| Admissibility of Yenawine’s jailhouse statements (hearsay) | Statements were untrustworthy and potentially motivated by plea bargaining; inadmissible hearsay and Confrontation Clause issue | Statements are non-testimonial and admissible as statements against interest with sufficient corroboration | Admission not an abuse of discretion; statements were non‑testimonial and admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) |
| Admission of character evidence (Rule 404) | Testimony about Yenawine’s past crimes and money‑related evidence impermissibly suggested propensity and uncharged laundering | Much testimony was elicited by defense; court limited and corrected evidence; no prejudicial error | No plain error: either not erroneous or not prejudicial enough to affect substantial rights |
| Sufficiency of corroboration for truthfulness of unavailable declarant | Yenawine’s remarks lacked trustworthy corroboration | Corroborating evidence (travel, documents, payments, devices) supported trustworthiness | Corroboration was adequate; admission upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. 2008) (totality-of-circumstances test for constructive amendment via jury instructions)
- United States v. Whitfield, 695 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012) (grand jury’s exclusive role in defining charges)
- United States v. Floresca, 38 F.3d 706 (4th Cir. 1994) (constructive amendment/fatal variance principles)
- United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2013) (focus on whether defendant tried on unindicted charges)
- United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 1999) (constructive amendment discussion)
- United States v. Dargan, 738 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2013) (testimonial vs. non‑testimonial statements and Rule 804 analysis)
- United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for admission of hearsay under Rule 804)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial statements)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain‑error standard elements)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review framework)