U.S. v. Fenton

• Decision Date: 22 December 1998
• Docket Number: No. 98-1J.,98-1J.
• Citation: 30 F.Supp.2d 520
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Donald Lee FENTON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

30 F.Supp.2d 520

UNITED STATES of America, v.Donald Lee FENTON, Defendant.

No. 98-1J.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

December 22, 1998.

Marketa Sims, Federal Public Defender's Office, Pittsburgh, PA, for Donald Lee Fenton, defendant.

Leon Rodriguez, United States Attorney's Office, Pittsburgh, PA, John J. Valkovci, Jr., United States Attorney's Office, Johnstown, PA, for U.S.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

D.BROOKS SMITH, District Judge.

Donald Lee Fenton was tried before a jury and found guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), threatening a federal official.At the close of the government's case, as well as at the conclusion of all the evidence, Fenton moved for a judgment of acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.I deferred ruling on both motions.After careful consideration of the briefs and oral argument, I agree and will grant the motion.¹

I.

Fenton's conviction arises out of a heated conversation with insurance adjuster Randy Leventry, in which he made death threats against, inter alia, Leventry, the staff of the Johnstown, Pennsylvania office of Erie Insurance Company, United States Representative John Murtha and his aide, John Hugya.The evidence at trial revealed that this altercation arose, not over matters of political philosophy, but over a dispute concerning allegedly defective repairs to Fenton's fourteen-year-old pickup truck.How Congressman Murtha's name came to be involved in this otherwise private dispute bears further discussion.

Fenton, an odd jobs contractor by trade and a community activist by self-profession, developed a somewhat grandiose plan by which he believed he could rejuvenate Johnstown's flagging local economy.This plan, according to Fenton, required some $60 million in federal funding.To secure that money, he contacted the offices of Congressman Murtha and was directed to Murtha's local aide, John Hugya.Hugya agreed to meet Fenton and discuss his plan sometime in July 1996 at a restaurant at the top of the Johnstown Inclined Plane.Fenton arrived at the meeting with his plan, contained in a pizza box, which involved various flood control, transportation and recreational "improvements."Hugya told Fenton that a plan of such size would normally require a partnership of federal, state and local governments and directed him to John Skiavo at Johnstown Area Regional Industries.Dkt. no. 127, at 66.The meeting then ended, and the two had no further contact.

Fenton, however, believed that Hugya and Murtha liked his "plan" and wanted to take credit for it themselves, even if that meant ruining him, discrediting him or driving him to suicide in the process.He therefore came to see both Murtha and Hugya as conspirators against him, although there existed no rational basis for such a conclusion.

Almost a year later, in June 1997, Fenton brought his pickup truck to Carmen's Wholesale Tires to get an oil change.The mechanic, however, failed to replace the oil, as a result of which the truck's engine was destroyed.Carmen's was insured by Erie Insurance Company, which assigned Randy Leventry to investigate the claim on June 5.Leventry authorized the installation of a rebuilt engine.

After Fenton's truck was returned on June 13, it was discovered that the mechanic who installed the engine had not replaced the pilot bearing, which resulted in the destruction of the transmission.Leventry authorized the transmission to be replaced as well.Fenton's truck was serviced by John's Transmissions and returned to him on July 2.The very next day, the truck developed further problems involving oil leakage, which were repaired by Laurel Ford but which kept Fenton's vehicle out of operating condition until July 17.Erie Insurance did not pay for these repairs, as they were covered under the engine warranty.The same problem recurred on November 24, and Leventry instructed Fenton to bring his truck back to Laurel Ford.The malfunction was corrected and the truck was returned.

Unfortunately, the engine problem occurred again on December 3, and it proved to be too much for Fenton to take.He called Leventry and "said that the truck was leaking oil and spewing oil everywhere, that he was — he wanted something done.He's tired of all this, these problems with the truck.He said that he had gotten a gun and bullets and he was going to start killing people."Dkt. no. 126, at 64(Leventry, direct).Fenton went on to tell Leventry that if Laurel Ford"said they repaired the truck, they're liars[ ]" and that the truck was worse than it was before the repairs were performed.Id.Fenton continued to discuss his claim with Leventry, who testified that his demeanor was, for the most part, "fairly matter of fact[ ]" in this portion of the conversation.Id. at 65.

As the discussion progressed, however, Fenton's tone became more agitated and he seemed desperate.Id."[H]e said that Murtha, Congressman Murtha, was conspiring with the insurance company and the [Johnstown] Tribune-Democrat to ruin him and to cause him to commit suicide."Id.Fenton then stated "that he was going to shoot Congressman Murtha's head off.He also said that he was going to shoot John Hugya's head off."Id. at 66.Later in the conversation, Fenton told Leventry "that he was going to kill all Erie [Insurance] employees."Id. at 67.He continued, "I may not kill you, but if I were you, I would keep my doors locked because once this gets started, I don't know what's going to happen."Id.Fenton then elaborated further about the nature of the "conspiracy"he believed was operating against him:

He did say that Murtha stole his ideas for an economic recovery plan that he had drawn up.It had to do with an overhead rail transportation system and other ideas that he had....He said that since Mr. Murtha stole Mr. Fenton's ideas, that now Mr. Murtha would have to see that Fenton's either killed or commit [sic] suicide.

Id. at 67.Fenton went on:

He said he had spoken to his pastor, and he had — he knows that God would forgive him for what he's going to do; that if the Government declares war on him, he was going to have to take a body count....He said he was desperate, that he hadn't eaten for three days; that Congressman Murtha's trying to destroy his business and has succeeded in doing so....Mr. Fenton told me that he had been to Vietnam, he said, in 1975.He said that he had seen people die there, that he's not afraid to die.He said that he would kill until he's killed.He said that when he dies, there would be a tape, that he had produced a videotape.It would be disseminated to the press, it would be detrimental to Mr. Murtha.It would lay out the entire conspiracy....

Towards the end of the conversation I told Mr. Fenton that I hoped that this was his way of reaching out for help.He told me to tell that to CNN.I told him that I would not — I would not be able to keep this silent, that I would have to make a few calls.He understood that.

Id. at 68, 70.

Fenton did not tell Leventry to convey the message to Murtha, nor was there evidence to suggest that Fenton even implied that Leventry should do so.For his part, Leventry did not tell Fenton that he was going to relay the contents of the conversation to Congressman Murtha, nor did he contact the Congressman's office.See dkt. no. 127, at 42(Leventry, cross).In response to Fenton's agitated statements, Leventry called the local police department, resulting in Fenton's arrest.Officer Price subsequently contacted Hugya and apprised him of Fenton's statements.See dkt. no. 127, at 58.Hugya then called FBI Agent Dale Frye.Id. at 69.

Fenton was subsequently indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B) for threatening Murtha (Count I) and Hugya (Count II).On Fenton's motion, I dismissed Count II, holding as a matter of law that Hugya was not an "official" within the group of protected persons enumerated in § 115.United States v. Fenton,10 F.Supp.2d 501(W.D.Pa.1998).²The case was tried to a jury in July 1998, which returned a verdict of "guilty" at Count I, threatening Congressman Murtha.

II.

Fenton contends, under Fed. R.Crim.P. 29, that the evidence introduced by the government at his trial was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B).In deciding the question of sufficiency, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and the conviction must stand unless it appears that there was no substantial evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.United States v. Cooper,121 F.3d 130, 133(3d Cir.1997);United States v. Obialo,23 F.3d 69, 71-72(3d Cir.1994).

The statutory provision under which Fenton was indicted provides, in pertinent part:

Whoever ... threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official ... [i] with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official ... while engaged in the performance of official duties, or [ii] with intent to retaliate against such official ... on account of the performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1).This language contains an actus reus, specifically, making a threat, as well as two defined forms of mens rea:(1) intent to prospectively interfere with the victim's exercise of official duties; or (2) intent to retaliate against the victim for the past exercise of official duties.I will discuss these elements seriatim.

III.

Section 115(a)(1)(B) proscribes only threatening communications, recognizing that not all apparently threatening utterances fall into the category of "true threats."The words spoken by Fenton without question reeked of animus, but his statements regarding Congressman Murtha were made only to Leventry.The evidence shows merely that Leventry was an insurance adjuster with no connection to Murtha.The question...