United States v. Lake - 150 F.3d 269 (3d Cir. 1998)

Rule:

Under the carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2119, the prosecution must prove that the defendant (1) with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm (2) took a motor vehicle (3) that had been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce (4) from the person or presence of another (5) by force and violence or by intimidation. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must decide whether the jury could have rationally found that each of the challenged elements had been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Facts:

After a jury trial, the defendant, Hilton A. Lake, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, namely, a carjacking. Lake challenges his conviction on numerous grounds, the most substantial of which is that he did not violate the carjacking statute because, he argues, he did not take the motor vehicle in question "from the person or presence" of the victim. 

Issue:

Was the conviction of Lake under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(c)(1) for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, namely, a carjacking, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 2119 proper?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury's inference that the car was taken from the person or presence of the victim was rational when Lake took keys from the victim at gunpoint and fear could have caused the victim to hesitate before perhaps attempting to prevent the carjacking. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury's finding that the gun used was real. The court also held that the jury could have inferred an intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury by the holding of a gun to the victim's head. The court also held that a police officer with personal knowledge that there were no car manufacturers on the island was qualified to testify that the car had to have been transported in interstate commerce.