Carjacking Conviction Supported By Sufficient Evidence; Cell Phone Found Near Car Crash Was Abandoned

US v. Small: Small was one of three masked men (one of which had a gun) who confronted a driver in Baltimore just after he’d parked his car. They demanded that he “hand over everything he had” while pointing a gun in his face, but the driver gave them his car keys while refusing to give them his house keys. After they had the keys, they demanded that the driver come with them, but he “turned around and walked home.” The car was stolen. Three days later, Small was seen driving it at a local mall. A chase ensued, which ended when Small “drove through a fence surrounding a National Security Agency” facility. When police arrived at the crash site, Small was gone, only to be found the next morning when he “emerged from a nearby sewer.” At the scene of the crash officers recovered blood-stained clothing and a cell phone, which they used multiple times without getting a warrant. Information gathered during those uses provided the basis for the eventual warrant to search the phone, which provided evidence used against Small at his subsequent trial, where he was convicted of carjacking and destruction of Government property.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Small’s convictions and sentence. Small’s primary argument was that the government failed to prove that he acted with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm needed to sustain the carjacking conviction. The court disagreed, concluding that there was sufficient evidence given the time of night, that the driver was confronted by three masked men, one of those men was armed and it “would remained trained on [the driver], only a foot from his head, during the entire interaction.” The court also noted that the three men made physical contact with the driver when they patted him down to see if he had anything else on him. That the three men did not threaten the driver, did not harm him when he disobeyed instructions, and there was no evidence that the gun was loaded were all relevant factors to the question of intent, but were not dispositive on an issue best left to the jury. The court also rejected Small’s argument that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the information gathered from the phone, holding that it had been abandoned when Small fled from the scene of the accident. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of two jurors who expressed concern that a few spectators at the trial were examining them closely.