United States v. Daniel Darby

Daniel Darby appeals from his conviction for attempted bank robbery under the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (1982). The district court had jurisdiction based on 18 U.S.C. § 3231 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . The issues before us on appeal are (1) whether the court properly instructed the jury on the intent required to support a conviction under § 2113(a), and (2) whether expert psychiatric testimony corroborating Darby’s testimony should have been admitted. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse Darby’s conviction and remand to the district court.

FACTS

On September 12, 1986, Daniel Darby took a bus from his low-income hotel on skid row to Hollywood. Darby exited the bus, took a piece of paper and a crumpled McDonald’s bag out of a trash can, and wrote on the paper: “This is a stick up, put your money in this bag.” He then entered Security Pacific Bank and stood in line, where he attracted the attention of customers and the security guard.

The security guard alerted the operations officer that there might be an attempted robbery and then stood behind Darby as he approached the teller’s window. Darby placed the note on the counter. The…

dissenting:

If on April 1, 1990 John Dillinger, Jr. donned a mask, entered a bank, frightened the customers and by written note demanded money of the teller, under the rule crafted by the majority today he may have a *628 defense: “April Fools! I was only kidding. I wasn’t meaning to take the bank’s money at all.” From the novel facts of this case, the majority has derived a rule which invites frustrated bank robbers to proffer a defense theory which makes a nullity of the crime of attempt. Because I believe the result is contrary to the language and logic of § 2118(a), and ignores and conflicts with the precedent of this circuit and others, I dissent. The statute and the case law on attempted bank robbery do not require specific intent to steal; rather it is sufficient that there be an intent to perform the acts that constitute robbery, the taking by force and violence or by intimidation.

Beginning with the language of § 2113, one must note that an intent element is specifically incorporated into some but not all the provisions of the statute. The first paragraph of § 2113(a), at issue in this case, makes no mention of an intent element:

The second paragraph of § 2113(a)…

857 F.2d 623 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel DARBY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 87-5150. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 1, 1988. Decided Sept. 15, 1988. Jay L. Lichtman, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Leslie A. Swain, Asst. U.S. Atty., Criminal Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before HUG, TANG and NELSON, Circuit Judges. NELSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Daniel Darby appeals from his conviction for attempted bank robbery under the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (a) (1982). The district court had jurisdiction based on 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3231 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . The issues before us on appeal are (1) whether the court properly instructed the jury on the intent required to support a conviction under Sec. 2113(a), and (2) whether expert psychiatric testimony corroborating Darby's testimony should have been admitted. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse Darby's conviction and remand to the district court. FACTS 2 On September 12, 1986, Daniel Darby took a bus from his…