United States v. Walker

• Citation: 32 F.4th 377
• Decision Date: 27 April 2022
• Docket Number: 21-4088
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Charles Anthony WALKER, Jr., a/k/a Supreme, a/k/a Preme, Defendant - Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

32 F.4th 377

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.Charles Anthony WALKER, Jr., a/k/a Supreme, a/k/a Preme, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 21-4088

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: March 11, 2022

Decided: April 27, 2022

ARGUED: Thomas Kieran Maher, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Amos G. Tyndall, AMOS TYNDALL PLLC, Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Norman Acker, III, Acting United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before THACKER, RICHARDSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion, in which Judge Richardson and Judge Rushing joined.

THACKER, Circuit Judge:

After a five-day trial, a jury found Charles Anthony Walker, Jr. ("Appellant") guilty of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, and witness tampering. Appellant challenges those convictions, asserting that the district court erroneously admitted certain evidence during the trial and that the evidence against him was insufficient to sustain the witness tampering conviction.¹

Although we agree with Appellant that some of the evidence the jury heard during the trial should have been excluded, we conclude that the remaining evidence supporting Appellant's guilt was so overwhelming that the erroneously admitted evidence did not affect the trial's outcome. We further hold that the district court properly denied Appellant's motions for a judgment of acquittal on the witness tampering charge. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's convictions.

I.

A.Facts Adduced at Trial

We recite the facts adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the United States (the "Government"), which prevailed in the district court. United States v. Bush , 944 F.3d 189, 191 n.1 (4th Cir. 2019).

1.Events Preceding Robberies

In 2018, Appellant was planning to rob a Rolex store in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and he recruited Joey Wayne Chambers ("Chambers") and Malik Shawn Maynard ("Maynard") -- who then recruited Christopher Wellington Brown ("Brown") -- to help him. Appellant had been friends with Chambers for several years. Appellant met Maynard while Appellant was in prison, and they reconnected upon Appellant's release. Brown met Maynard shortly after being released from prison in May 2018, and Maynard introduced Brown to Appellant.

Appellant was also acquainted with Byron Jacobee Sparks ("Sparks"). He knew that Sparks would sell drugs in exchange for vehicles and had previously asked to buy a vehicle from Sparks "a couple times." J.A. 408.² Sparks offered to sell Appellant a blue Mazda minivan that had been "shot up" and had bullet holes and a busted window. Id. at 410. Appellant wanted to buy the minivan, and he paid for it with some cocaine and "a little cash" but "was still kind of short on the money." Id. at 409. Sparks initially refused to give Appellant the vehicle until he paid in full, but when Sparks was out of town, Appellant called him saying he needed the vehicle. Sparks decided to give the minivan to Appellant even though he still owed the rest of the agreed-upon price. He had the van delivered to Appellant.

On July 12, 2018, Appellant and Ladammingo Baldwin ("Baldwin"), an ex-girlfriend who was incarcerated at the time, spoke on the phone. Their call was recorded. During the call, Appellant told Baldwin, "I should have to ... go in because it's my lineup and it's my tools they using." S.J.A. 979.³ He commented, "[W]e going straight to the back room." S.J.A. 980. Appellant also told Baldwin, "I gotta have my mind and focus on ... what the mission is.... I gotta focus on what I gotta do because I got people's lives in my hands ... as well as my own." Id.

On the day before the robbery of the Virginia Beach Rolex store was supposed to take place, Appellant picked up Brown and Maynard from their apartment in Carrboro, North Carolina. Appellant then bought them clothing to wear during the robbery and gave them guns to use. The three of them spent the night at Appellant's apartment in Greensboro, North Carolina.

On the morning of July 28, 2018, Appellant directed Brown and Maynard to a minivan "with a busted left driver's side passenger window," J.A. 228–29, with "a black bag on it," id. at 311. Appellant picked up Chambers, and they rode together in Appellant's Mercedes SUV, and Brown and Maynard followed them in the minivan to the Rolex store in Virginia Beach. On the way there, they stopped at a gas station, where Appellant bought Bluetooth earpieces so that the group could communicate during the robbery.

When they arrived at the Rolex store, Appellant, Brown, and Maynard went inside. The three of them "walked around that store for quite a while trying to figure out how it would be possible to [rob] it." J.A. 229. However, Brown and Maynard "got spooked" because "[t]here were too many people." Id. at 309. The threesome ended up leaving the Rolex store without robbing it. But Appellant told the group to follow him to another jewelry store in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, where they could execute the robbery. Brown and Maynard then followed Appellant to the second store.

2.

First Robbery (July 28, 2018)

a.

When Appellant, Chambers, Brown, and Maynard arrived at the jewelry store in Elizabeth City, Appellant directed Brown and Maynard to go inside and "make sure that the conditions for this particular robbery would work, meaning that it wasn't too many people there, meaning that there was no security, meaning it would be simple to do; there wouldn't be any trouble." J.A. 234. Appellant gave Brown a fake Rolex watch to use as a prop when he and Maynard went inside. Appellant also gave Brown a credit card, and Brown "was supposed to mention that [he] needed to check [his] balance before he made a purchase, so [he and Maynard] would come back." Id. at 235. Appellant gave Maynard a Bluetooth earpiece so that they could communicate with each other.

At the time of the robbery, only Karen Swain ("Swain"), who was the store's assistant manager, and Tiffani Bene ("Bene") were working. It had been an "extremely slow" day with only a few customers. J.A. 115. Around 8:00pm, Brown and Maynard entered the store, and Bene greeted them. Swain thought "they acted a little sketchy." Id. at 124. Brown and Maynard approached Bene and expressed interest in a watch. Bene chatted with them for several minutes and removed one of the watches from the jewelry case. Brown told Bene that he needed to leave to "check his bank card," and he and Maynard left the store without purchasing anything. Id. at 72.

Brown and Maynard then went to where Appellant was waiting in the parking lot and told him that they "didn't really know what to take" from the store. J.A. 315. Appellant decided that he would go into the store to look around and would call Maynard to signal that Brown and Maynard could return to the store to rob it. While Appellant was inside the store, Brown and Maynard sat in the minivan and waited for him to call.

When Appellant entered the store, he asked to look at engagement rings. Bene took a ring out of the case and handed it to Appellant. She called Swain over to assist her in answering a question Appellant asked about diamonds, and Swain chatted with Appellant. Bene thought that Appellant did not seem "interested" in the ring, "even though he was ... asking questions." J.A. 76. She observed that "he stood very far back from the cases." Id.

Then, Appellant called Maynard, but he told Bene and Swain that he was receiving a call from "his lady." J.A. 76. Appellant said, "I have it right now, babe. I'm looking at it right now, babe. I'm looking at it right now, babe." Id. At that point, Brown and Maynard came back inside the store with guns. Appellant "made [a] little noise and threw his hands up." Id. at 77. Based on her observations, Swain believed Appellant was "just a little bit trying to ... act like he was afraid." Id. at 119. Appellant did not leave the store right away. When he did leave, Bene and Swain "thought he was going to get [them] help," but no help arrived until after they called the police themselves. Id. at 78. Bene believed Appellant "was the decoy guy" for the robbery. Id. at 89.

Brown and Maynard led Bene and Swain to the back room of the store, where the store's safe was located. Maynard asked for the money in the safe, but Swain explained to him that the safe contained only merchandise. Maynard then demanded the contents of the safe, which Swain gave to him. Meanwhile, Brown directed Bene to the jewelry case with the engagement rings, where she had just been talking to Appellant, and instructed her to hand him certain rings. Maynard forced Swain to give him the money from the cash register. He also took chains and bracelets from the case containing men's jewelry. In total, Brown and Maynard made off with $300,000 worth of merchandise.

Brown then directed Bene to the back room of the store, where he handcuffed her. Maynard brought Swain to the back room, and she and Bene were left there alone. Eventually, Bene and Swain exited the back room and called the police.

Upon questioning by the Government, Bene testified at trial that the robbery "changed [her] life." J.A. 84. She stated:

Well, I'm mentally messed up. I don't trust anyone. I don't like to talk to anyone. I don't like to go out by myself. I lost my marriage because I don't want to be touched. And my kids lost their mom because I can't touch them the way they need to be touched, and love them, and do things with them. I'm working on it. I'm in counseling.

Id. Bene further testified that she had not worked since the day of the robbery "[b]ecause I'm scared." Id. at 85.

Swain also testified that the robbery "chan...