Several Evidentiary Errors Are Harmless in Review of Hobbs Act Convictions

US v. Ivey: Ivey was charged with Hobbs Act robbery and using a firearm in connection with a crime of violence for his role in a robbery and shooting at a strip club in Charlotte, North Carolina. He was ultimately convicted on both counts and sentenced to life in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit agreed with Ivey that several evidentiary rulings made prior to and during his trial were erroneous, but concluded ultimately that they were harmless and affirmed his convictions and sentence. First, Ivey argued that the identifications of him by two witnesses to the robbery should have been suppressed because the show-ups in which they viewed him were unduly suggestive of his guilt. The court agreed, noting that Ivey was the only person in the show-up, was “handcuffed and emerged from the back of a police cruisier while the witness watched.” While the show-ups did have “some indicia of reliability, on the whole those identifications were not sufficiently reliable to withstand the suggestiveness of the show-ups. Second, Ivey argued that incriminating statements he made after his apprehension should have been suppressed because he was not given Miranda warnings. While not explicitly agreeing, the court did conclude that “it would be reasonable to conclude” that Ivey was subject to custodial interrogation. Finally, Ivey argued that the district court violated the best evidence rule by allowing a police officer to testify about the contents of a business card found in his pocket rather than admit the card itself. The court agreed that the card was not “unavailable” simply because it was not present in the courtroom. However, the court ultimately concluded that each of these errors, even taken cumulatively, were harmless given the strength of other admissible evidence against Ivey. The court also rejected Ivey’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden undermined the court’s decision in Mathis that Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence by concluding that Hobbs Act robbery cannot be committed recklessly.

Judge Rushing concurred in the result, but disagreed that the show-up identifications were impermissibly suggestive.