United States v. Chauncy J. Clark
227 F.3d 771 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The element of 'intimidation' for the crime of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is determined by an objective test of whether a defendant's actions would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened, and does not require an explicit threat, the brandishing of a weapon, or an intent to cause fear.
Facts:
- On January 22, 1999, Chauncy Clark entered a Marshall & Ilsley Bank and waited in line for a teller.
- Clark approached teller Jennifer Kottke and slid her a note that read: 'It is important that you remain calm and place all of your twenties, fifties and hundred dollar bills on the counter and act normal for the next fifteen minutes.'
- When Kottke appeared confused, Clark verbally stated, 'Yes, Ma’am, this is a holdup.'
- Kottke placed approximately $2500 on the counter, which Clark took.
- Throughout the encounter, Clark did not display a weapon, made no overt threats of harm, and kept his hands visible on the counter.
- Kottke testified that she became 'very' scared, 'panicked,' and feared for her safety during the incident.
- After Clark left, Kottke was visibly shaken, trembling, and unable to drive home.
- Clark testified that he had no intention of harming Kottke and would have left if she had refused to give him the money.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government prosecuted Chauncy Clark in the U.S. District Court for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a).
- Clark waived his right to a jury, and a bench trial was held before a district court judge.
- At the close of the government's case, Clark's counsel made a motion for dismissal, arguing the government had failed to establish intimidation. The district court denied the motion.
- The district court found Clark guilty of committing bank robbery by intimidation.
- Clark, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish the element of intimidation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's conduct, which includes passing a note demanding money and stating 'this is a holdup' but involves no overt threats or a visible weapon, constitute 'intimidation' under the federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffey, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the defendant's conduct constitutes 'intimidation' under the federal bank robbery statute. The court held that intimidation is evaluated under an objective test: would the defendant’s acts cause an ordinary person to reasonably feel threatened? The court reasoned that the combination of Clark's demand note and his verbal confirmation that it was a 'holdup' was sufficient to create the impression that any resistance would be met with force. The court explicitly stated that an overt threat or the presence of a weapon is not necessary for intimidation to exist. The teller's subjective fear, while not dispositive, is probative of whether a reasonable person would have been afraid under the same circumstances. Therefore, Clark's actions, viewed in their totality within the context of a bank, were sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find intimidation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a broad interpretation of 'intimidation' for federal bank robbery, solidifying the circuit's use of an objective, reasonable person standard. It clarifies that the defendant's subjective intent is irrelevant and that the context of the act itself can supply the necessary threatening element, even in the absence of explicit violence. This lowers the evidentiary burden for prosecutors seeking a robbery conviction over a lesser larceny charge, as they do not need to prove the defendant brandished a weapon or made verbal threats. The ruling emphasizes that the inherent nature of demanding money in a bank setting is itself intimidating to a reasonable person.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Chauncy J. Clark