United States v. John Furfay Walker
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 3288, 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1019, 137 F.3d 1217 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The phrase 'for ransom or reward or otherwise' in the Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201, is not unconstitutionally vague and encompasses any purpose from which the perpetrator expects to receive a benefit, regardless of whether that benefit is pecuniary.
Facts:
- On or about July 19, 1996, John F. Walker began a relationship with Jolene Dilley.
- On July 25, 1996, in a motel room in Salt Lake City, Utah, Dilley informed Walker she was leaving.
- Walker physically restrained Dilley, pinned her to the bed, choked her, and threatened to kill her.
- Walker told Dilley that to avoid being killed, she had to accompany him in her car for 24 hours so he could convince her to stay with him.
- Fearing for her life, Dilley agreed. Walker took her car keys and credit cards and prevented her from putting on her shoes.
- Walker drove Dilley against her will from Salt Lake City, Utah, across the state line into Idaho.
- During the drive, Walker again threatened Dilley, stating he was going to harm her.
- Dilley grabbed the steering wheel, causing the car to stop, at which point she escaped and flagged down other motorists for help.
Procedural Posture:
- John F. Walker was charged with one count of kidnaping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 in a federal district court (the court of first instance).
- At the trial, following the close of the government's evidence, Walker's counsel moved for dismissal based on insufficiency of the evidence, but did not raise a constitutional vagueness challenge.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Walker of the kidnaping charge.
- Walker, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the intermediate federal appellate court).
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 the phrase 'or otherwise' in the Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201, render the statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to a defendant who kidnaps a victim for the purpose of convincing her to remain in a relationship with him?
Opinions:
Majority - Briscoe, Circuit Judge
No. The phrase 'or otherwise' in the Federal Kidnaping Act is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant because the statute provides fair warning that kidnaping for any personal benefit is prohibited. The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a criminal statute provide sufficient notice for an ordinary person to understand what conduct is forbidden. The Supreme Court has previously interpreted the 'or otherwise' language broadly to encompass any benefit a captor might seek, not just pecuniary gain. Numerous federal circuits, including this one, have consistently rejected vagueness challenges to this statutory language. Walker's conduct of forcing Dilley to travel interstate under threat of violence for the purpose of convincing her to remain in a relationship was clearly motivated by his own self-interest, which falls squarely within the 'or otherwise' purpose proscribed by § 1201(a).
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the broad scope of the Federal Kidnaping Act, solidifying that the 'or otherwise' purpose element is not limited to motives of financial gain. By holding that a kidnapper's desire to convince a victim to stay in a relationship constitutes a sufficient 'benefit,' the court lowers the threshold for prosecutors to prove this element of the crime. This precedent makes it easier to prosecute kidnaping cases where the motive is personal, psychological, or retaliatory, ensuring the statute covers a wide range of harmful conduct beyond traditional ransom scenarios.
