## Facts

- On December 29, 1967, John Pointer, a Washington, D.C. taxicab driver, picked up Jessie R. Carter (front passenger seat) and an associate, Whiteside (back seat).
- During the ride, Whiteside produced a .22 caliber pistol and shot Pointer twice.
- Evidence indicated a robbery: Pointer’s jacket pocket was turned inside out; recorded fares totaled $24.60 but only $1 was found; Pointer’s change carrier was missing.
- A pack of Pall Mall cigarettes later identified as Carter’s was found on the right side of the dashboard; blood was found on seats and on interior and exterior door surfaces.
- A witness saw Carter and Whiteside leaving the cab shortly after the shooting; Whiteside had blood on one side of his trench coat.
- James Makel later drove Carter and Whiteside across town and testified Carter said Whiteside “did not have to kill Pointer because [Carter] had him ‘up tight,’” meaning Carter restrained Pointer by the shoulder and neck.
- After arrest, Carter admitted he was in the cab when Whiteside shot Pointer but denied any plan to rob or kill and denied seeing a robbery.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed most favorably to the government, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Carter participated in the robbery and was therefore guilty of felony-murder, rather than being merely present.
2. Whether the convictions could stand where a key link in the proof was Makel’s testimony about Carter’s “up tight” statement, which Carter challenged as unreliable.
3. Whether any additional alleged trial errors required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Carter’s convictions for robbery and felony-murder and left the 20-years-to-life sentence undisturbed.
- The court held the evidence permitted the jury to find Carter was an active participant in the robbery, including by restraining the driver while the shooting and taking occurred.
- The court declined to reweigh Makel’s credibility, treating that assessment as the jury’s function.
- The court rejected Carter’s remaining claims of error as insufficient to warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- On appellate review for sufficiency, the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the government, and the question is whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “Mere presence” at the scene is not enough for criminal liability, but participation may be proved through reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence and the defendant’s own statements.
- Credibility determinations and the choice among competing inferences are primarily for the jury; an appellate court will not substitute its judgment unless testimony is incredible as a matter of law.
- A participant in an underlying felony may be convicted of felony-murder when a killing occurs in the course of that felony, even if the participant did not fire the fatal shots.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Carter’s robbery and felony-murder convictions because the jury could reasonably infer from Carter’s incriminating “up tight” statement, his presence and position in the cab, and corroborating physical and circumstantial evidence that he aided the robbery; that participation supported felony-murder liability and did not permit appellate second-guessing of witness credibility.


United States v. Carter, 445 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1971)