Stephon Demus, Ryan Clark, and Marlon Barksdale were convicted in the Northern District of Illinois for one count of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. The underlying facts involved a late-night robbery at a 24-hour convenience store in Chicago known as J&J Food and Grocery. The defendants first robbed a man standing on the sidewalk just outside the store's vestibule at gunpoint. They then entered the vestibule and robbed additional customers waiting in line. The defendants did not demand money from store employees or attempt to steal from the store's inventory. Following the incident, the store shut down for investigation, with employees estimating the closure lasted between thirty minutes to an hour. The defendants moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the robbery did not affect interstate commerce, and the district court denied the motion. They now appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the commerce nexus and the validity of the general verdict.
The Seventh Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. The court began by addressing the Hobbs Act's interstate commerce requirement. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court noted the Act's language is 'unmistakably broad' and requires only a 'de minimis or otherwise slight effect on interstate commerce.' The court found this bar easily cleared because the parties agreed the store engaged in interstate commerce and the robbery forced the store to close, thereby preventing commerce from occurring and reducing profits. The court explained that the nexus between the robbery and commerce was sufficient because the victims were standing feet away from the clerk, waiting to purchase items, establishing a direct link to the store's commercial activity. Regarding the defendants' alternative argument that the robbery of the man outside the store did not affect commerce, the court applied the rule from Yates v. United States. This rule requires setting aside a verdict if it is supportable on one legal ground but not another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected. The court found this argument failed because the defendants were charged with a single count of robbery. For a Yates claim to succeed, the jury must have been presented with two distinct legal theories, one of which was legally inadequate. The court determined the defendants failed to show that the jury was presented with a theory that the events inside and outside the store constituted separate robberies. Since the jury was not asked to choose between a valid theory and an invalid one, the general verdict stands. Finally, because the Hobbs Act convictions were affirmed, the court also affirmed the convictions for brandishing a firearm, which were dependent on the underlying robbery.
The decision reinforces the broad scope of the Hobbs Act's interstate commerce requirement, confirming that a robbery forcing a business to close satisfies the nexus even if the robbery itself was directed at customers rather than the business's inventory. It also clarifies that defendants cannot use a Yates argument to challenge a general verdict unless they can prove the jury was presented with two distinct legal theories, one of which was legally insufficient. The case is remanded with instructions to affirm the convictions.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download