United States v. Boykin, No. 14-2307 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseR.W., a student, bought marijuana from Boykin, who delivered to campus. After a few months, Boykin and another dealer, Patterson, planned to rob R.W., whom Patterson did not know. Through the exchange of text messages, R.W. agreed to buy marijuana. Patterson and Boykin drove to campus. R.W. entered Boykin's car at his direction. R.W. then noticed Patterson, who pulled a gun and told R.W. that he had to "give up everything." R.W. had an iPhone, a "gar card," his dorm key, and $310 cash. After travelling a short distance from campus, they stopped. Patterson pointed the gun and told R.W. not to "try anything stupid" or he would "get shot." Boykin opened the door—because there was a child safety lock—and released R.W. R.W. called security. Police stopped Boykin and Patterson, seized a handgun from Boykin's car, and discovered R.W.'s gar card in the backseat. Boykin had $145, and Patterson had $40 and a .22 caliber round in his pocket. Boykin was convicted of kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. 1201, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(D), and 846. The Eighth Circuit affirmed Boykin's kidnapping conviction, rejecting an argument that the indictment was missing an essential element, but reversed in part for insufficient evidence of a conspiracy to distribute marijuana.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Bye, Circuit Judge, and Schiltz, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. In a kidnapping prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(a)(1),the indictment's failure to allege the kidnapping was "for ransom or reward or otherwise" was not fatally insufficient - see Hayes v. U.S., 296 F.2d 657 (8th Cir. 1961); the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute marijuana as the first instance relied on by the government was no more than a buyer-seller relationship and as to the claim that defendant was in a conspiracy with others, such as his supplier and co-defendant, the record was simply insufficient to support the existence of a conspiracy. Judge Bye, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.