Defendants 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 incident occurred late at night at J&J Food and Grocery, a 24-hour convenience store in Chicago. The defendants approached an individual standing on the sidewalk just outside the store's vestibule and robbed him at gunpoint. They then entered the vestibule and robbed additional customers who were waiting in line to place orders. The defendants did not demand money from store employees or attempt to steal from the store's inventory. Following the robbery, the store shut down for approximately thirty minutes to an hour to allow police to investigate. The defendants moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the robbery did not affect interstate commerce and that the jury might have convicted them based solely on the robbery of the individual outside the store, which they claimed lacked a commerce nexus. The district court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.
The Seventh Circuit, writing through Circuit Judge Kirsch, addressed two primary arguments. First, regarding the interstate commerce nexus, the court reiterated that the Hobbs Act applies if the robbery has a de minimis or slight effect on interstate commerce. The court noted that the parties agreed the store engaged in interstate commerce. Because the robbery forced the store to close temporarily, the court found it was clear that the defendants obstructed and delayed commerce in a literal sense, reducing the store's profits. The court cited precedent establishing that robbing individuals directly engaged in commerce, such as customers waiting in line to purchase goods, establishes the necessary nexus. Second, the court addressed the defendants' alternative argument that the jury might have convicted them based only on the robbery of the customer outside the store, which they argued did not affect commerce. The defendants relied on Yates v. United States, which requires setting aside a verdict if it is supportable on one legal ground but not another. The court rejected this, explaining that Yates applies only when the jury is presented with two distinct legal theories. Here, the defendants were charged with a single count of Hobbs Act robbery. The court found that the events inside and outside the store constituted a single robbery, not separate robberies. Because the jury was not presented with a second legal theory distinguishing the two locations, the Yates argument failed. The court concluded that the defendants' claim was merely a sufficiency of the evidence argument, which had already been rejected by the district court. Finally, the court affirmed the firearms convictions as they were dependent on the validity of the Hobbs Act robbery convictions.
The decision reinforces the broad scope of the Hobbs Act, confirming that robbing customers at a business that engages in interstate commerce satisfies the federal jurisdiction requirement even if the robbery is brief and the store is only temporarily closed. It clarifies that the Yates doctrine regarding jury confusion does not apply when the defense fails to present the jury with distinct legal theories of conviction. The convictions stand, and the defendants remain subject to their sentences. No remand instructions were issued as the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download