To: Elizabeth Viard
From: C. Michelle Lozano
Date: 11/19/2014
Re: United States v. Canter - dangerous weapon claim in bank robbery
Re: United States v. Canter - dangerous weapon claim in bank robbery
QUESTION PRESENTED
Under 18 U.S.C.§2113(d) is there
sufficient evidence to support the charge that Mr. Canter used a dangerous
weapon when he robbed the bank?
BRIEF ANSWER
Yes. Although the gun was wooden
replica of a gun, the dangerousness of the gun results from the greater burdens
that it imposes upon victims. Therefore, even though the gun in question was
only a wooden replica, the appearance of dangerousness is sufficient to subject
him to being charged with using a dangerous weapon while robbing the bank.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 5 of this year
(1989), Mr. Canter robbed the First State Bank. After he entered the bank, he
approached a teller and pulled from his pocket a crudely carved wooden replica
of a 9mm Beretta handgun, and demanded money. He had carved the replica from a
block of pine wood and stained it with dark walnut wood stain to make it look
black. He drilled a hole in the barrel end in an attempt to make it look like a
real Beretta. The teller was so frightened that he only glanced at the wooden gun,
he believed it was real. The teller at the next window looked at the replica
and afterward stated the she was fairly certain at the time that it was a fake.
No one else noticed whether the wooden replica was real. The teller handed Mr.
Canter the money and he fled.
ANALYSIS
The rule of law governing “dangerous weapon” under 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), provides that
(a)Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation,
takes, or attempts to take, from the person…money or any other thing of value…
shall be fined …or imprisoned…(d) Whoever, in committing, or in attempting to
commit, any offense defined in (a)…puts in jeopardy the life of any person by
use of a dangerous weapon or device…
A case on point is the United
States v. Martinez-Jimenez, 864 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1989). A toy gun
(replica) was used during a bank robbery. The court agreed that the toy gun did
not fit the statutory definition, but under the law did fall within the meaning
of a “dangerous weapon or device.” Just as in our case, the wooden replica is
still considered a “dangerous weapon” because it can be reasonably presumed
that such an article is always dangerous even though it may not be armed at a
particular time or place.
Section 2113(d) states that whoever, in committing puts in
jeopardy the life of a person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years,
or both.
CONCLUSION
The rule of law governing
“dangerous weapon” is 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) focuses on how a simulated or
replicated weapon creates the intention of harm and fear as well as
apprehension in the victims when used in a bank robbery. In conclusion, the penalty that applies to a
robber who is charged in a crime who uses a genuine, simulated or replicated
weapon carries the same penalty.
Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to support the charge that Mr.
Canter committed bank robbery by use of a “dangerous weapon.”
Publications
