United States v. Wynn, No. 15-2008 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of transmitting a threat to injure through interstate communications, 18 U.S.C. 875(c), and threatening a federal employee with intent to retaliate, 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B). Defendant, a housekeeping aid at the V.A. hospital in Little Rock, called a V.A. Crisis Hotline and said he had a gun and was going to shoot his supervisor. The court concluded that the district court’s jury instruction defining the elements of a section 875(c) offense, though consistent with then-governing Eighth Circuit precedent, omitted the mens rea element now required by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Elonis v. United States. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the conviction. The court concluded, however, that section 115(a)(1)(B) applied to defendant’s threats to assault or murder his supervisor; that the jury was properly instructed regarding the mens rea element of this offense; and that the evidence was sufficient to convict. The court rejected defendant’s contentions that the district court committed errors relating to his entrapment defense, and plain error regarding an alleged patient-psychotherapist privilege. Accordingly, the court confirmed the section 115(a)(1)(B) conviction.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Gruender and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The instructions given the jury on the charge of transmitting a threat to injure through interstate communications under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875(c), though consistent with then-governing Eighth Circuit precedent, omitted the mens rea element now required by the Supreme Court's decision in Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), and the conviction is reversed and the matter remanded with instruction to vacate the conviction; however, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 115(a)(1)(B) applied to the threats that defendant made against his supervisor at the VA, and the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction on this charge; further, the instruction given to the jury properly instructed them on the mens rea element of the offense; the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on an entrapment defense as the government's act of providing the number to a crisis Hotline did not induce defendant to use the Hotline to make criminal threats;information provided to nurses covering the Hotline was not protected by the patient-psychotherapist privilege as there was no evidence the nurses were licensed psychotherapists or that defendant made the calls in confidence during a course of diagnosis or treatment.
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.