U.S. v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 30 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-5047,80-5047 |
| Citation | 662 F.2d 1087 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James LEWIS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
William J. Ginivan, Alexandria, Va. (Cohen & Annand, Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Barry J. Kaplan, Washington, D. C. (Justin W. Williams, U. S. Atty., Leonie M. Brinkema, Asst. U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
A jury found the appellant, James Lewis, guilty of two counts of kidnapping, one count of armed robbery and another count of felonious assault. He contests the validity of the convictions on three grounds; first, that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; second, that the failure of the government to turn over certain notes denied him a fair trial; and finally he argues that the allegations in the first two counts of the indictment do not charge a kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201.
Count II of the indictment alleged a kidnaping when the victim was transported in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1). The elements of kidnaping under § 1201 are twofold: "the kidnaped victim shall have been (1) 'unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, or carried away by any means whatsoever' and (2) 'held for ransom or reward or otherwise.' " Chatwin v. United States, 326 U.S. 455, 459 (1946). 1 This circuit has described an unlawful seizure and holding as the essential elements of a kidnaping. See United States v. Young, 512 F.2d 321, 323 (4th Cir. 1975).
Count II fails to charge explicitly that the defendant "held" the victim. However, it states that the appellant "transport(ed) (the victim) in interstate commerce from the George Washington Memorial Parkway in the Eastern District of Virginia to the District of Columbia." An allegation that the accused transported the victim across state lines from Virginia to Pennsylvania was held to be sufficient to indicate a holding. Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653 (4th Cir. 1969). See also United States v. Martell, 335 F.2d 765, 765-66 (4th Cir. 1964) (). The holding may be brief. See United States v. Young, 512 F.2d 321 (4th Cir. 1974). We think the statement in Count II that the appellant transported the victim from Virginia to the District of Columbia adequately alleges a holding under § 1201(a)(1).
Count I (an unnumbered count) alleged kidnaping within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2). Count I also fails to charge that the appellant held the victim. Unlike Count II, it lacks language implying a holding. However, we need not resolve the issue of whether Count I fails to allege an essential element of the offense. The legislative history of 18 U.S.C. § 1201 instructs that Sections 1201(a)(1) and 1201(a)(2) do not create separate offenses when the same act is the subject of both charges.
The Senate Report concerning the 1972 amendments to § 1201 2 persuades us that § 1201(a) creates a single crime and subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) thereof constitute separate federal jurisdictional bases for that single crime. The Report states that the 1972 Amendments
make a number of substantive changes in the present kidnaping law. In lieu of the sole jurisdictional base of transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, jurisdiction to punish kidnaping is provided when (1) the victim is transported in interstate or foreign commerce (as under existing law); (2) the kidnaping occurs within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (3) in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States; or (4) the victim is a foreign official within the purview of section 1116 of title 18.
Although the term "kidnaping" has acquired a general meaning sufficient to encompass the operative term "seizes", "confines", etc. (compare 18 U.S.C. 351), for clarity the present terminology of 18 U.S.C. 1201 is retained. The term "ransom or reward or otherwise" is intended to reflect the judicial construction developed under existing Federal law. See Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 128 (56 S.Ct. 395, 397, 80 L.Ed. 522) (1936).
S.Rep. No. 92-1105, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. ---, reprinted in (1972) U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4316, 4326-27.
The Committee explained that the 1972 amendments
(m)ake several changes in the Federal kidnaping law as it will apply generally. In this regard, the law is amended to make the thrust of the offense the kidnapping itself rather than the interstate transportation of the kidnapped person. This effort to clearly differentiate the question of what criminal behavior falls within Federal jurisdiction not only makes the sanction more rational but also has the practical effect of assuring that a kidnapping which occurs in a hijacking situation is an extraditable offense from a country which does not recognize an offense keyed to interstate transportation.
A letter from the Attorney General and the Secretary of State included with the legislative history also describes the 1972 amendments to § 1201 as extensions of federal jurisdiction. Id. at 4322-23; see also United States v. Young, 512 F.2d 321, 323 (4th Cir. 1974).
Thus we think the Senate Report shows that the 1972 amendments separate the kidnaping itself from the federal jurisdictional bases for prosecution. This distinction now made between the act of kidnaping and the jurisdictional bases of § 1201(a) demonstrates that § 1201(a) proscribes one crime, with four jurisdictional bases, interstate or foreign commerce, maritime or territorial jurisdiction, special aircraft jurisdiction, and foreign guests of the government.
We conclude that § 1201(a) as amended creates a single crime with four...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Torres
...kidnapping occurs within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(a)(2). See also United States v. Lewis, 662 F.2d 1087, 1089-90 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 955, 102 S.Ct. 1464, 71 L.Ed.2d 672 In the instant case, the appellants were prosecuted for c......
-
U.S. v. Lankford
...to the Texas-Oklahoma border, the two would have had to travel a distance before crossing into Oklahoma. Cf. United States v. Lewis, 662 F.2d 1087, 1089 (4th Cir. 1981)(finding that an indictment's statement that appellant transported the victim from Virginia to the District of Columbia all......
-
U.S. v. Lentz, CR. 01-150-A.
...a defendant transported the victim across state lines is an adequate allegation of holding in an indictment. See United States v. Lewis, 662 F.2d 1087, 1088-89 (4th Cir.1981); Hall v. United States, 410 F.2d 653, 659 (4th Cir.1969); United States v. Martell, 335 F.2d 764, 765-66 (4th Cir.19......
-
U.S. v. Higgs
...Chatwin v. United States, 326 U.S. 455, 459, 66 S.Ct. 233, 90 L.Ed. 198 (1946) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Lewis, 662 F.2d 1087, 1088 (4th Cir.1981). According to the testimony of Gloria, after the argument between Higgs and Jackson was broken up by Haynes, the wome......