Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Donald Keith Burton appeals the denial of his motion for acquittal and for a new trial. He claims that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions for bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. �2113(a) and (d), brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. �924(c)(1), obstruction of commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. �1951(b)(3), and brandishing a firearm in furtherance of the obstruction of commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. �924(c)(1). Burton’s convictions arose from a rape and robbery in September 2000. The victim checked her mail at a post office. As she left the post office, Burton grabbed her from behind and demanded money. The victim told Burton that she had only a few dollars and gave him her wallet and ATM card. Burton then ordered the victim to get into her car and he drove them to a Union Planters Bank. Burton backed the car into the drive-through ATM in such a way that the victim, who was in the passenger seat, was able to access the ATM. The victim withdrew $150 and gave it to Burton. The jury returned a guilty verdict on four counts, including bank robbery under �2113(a). HOLDING:Reversed and vacated. Even though the victim immediately gave Burton the money, United States v. Van, 814 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1987) is directly on point and controlling, the court finds. The funds did not belong to the bank. Burton sought and received a limited amount of the victim’s money for which he knew her account had sufficient funds. The victim inserted her ATM card, entered her PIN, and withdrew money from her account. This is not a case in which the defendant sought the bank’s money. The victim made a valid, although coerced, withdrawal of her own funds, which Burton then stole. The $150 was not in the the care, custody, control, management or possession of the bank. The court only considers the care, custody, control, management or possession at the time of the transfer to Burton. The victim had the money and gave it to Burton in her vehicle, not in the bank. Regardless of how brief her possession, the bank did not have care, custody, control, management or possession of property in the victim’s vehicle. Cases finding that property was within the care, custody, control, management or possession of a bank have done so when the property was inside the bank. There is no evidence that the $150 “belong[ed] to” or was in the care, custody, control, management or possession of Union Planters Bank. Childs withdrew her money from her account and gave the money to Burton in her car. Thus, the district court erred by denying Burton’s motion for acquittal, the court concludes. Burton’s convictions for 18 U.S.C. �924(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C. �1951(b)(3) fail without his 18 U.S.C. �2113(a) and (d) conviction. OPINION:Garza, J.; Davis, Jones and Garza, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.