## Facts

- Two masked, gloved robbers entered a Missouri bank shortly after closing by firing a shotgun through the locked glass front door, leaving a spent 12-gauge shell and shattered glass.
- The robbers forced the lone teller to hand over $2,007, including ten pre-recorded $20 “bait bills,” and fled in a maroon-and-gray pickup truck with a distinctive bumper sticker.
- A similar truck was seen near the time of the robbery driven erratically by a masked person; the stolen truck was later found hidden in a shed several miles from the bank.
- Shortly after the robbery, Larry Wayne Hankins used some of the bait bills in the local area; the government also introduced evidence that he had recently lacked funds before the robbery.
- Investigators found shotgun shells and glass pieces in Hankins’s vehicle that were similar to items associated with the bank’s shattered door.
- While detained pending trial, Hankins escaped from custody seven days after confinement and was recaptured the same day; he later pleaded guilty to a separate escape count.
- At the robbery trial, the government introduced the escape as evidence of consciousness of guilt over objection.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d) and using a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).
2. Whether admitting evidence of Hankins’s escape as consciousness-of-guilt evidence was erroneous or unfairly prejudicial.
3. Whether the district court reversibly erred by refusing defense-requested jury instructions.
4. Whether the district court properly applied a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on escape and properly calculated the Guidelines range by grouping (or not grouping) counts.
5. Whether the restitution order should be reconsidered (including a requested stay).

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions for armed bank robbery, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and escape from custody.
- The court held the evidence—though largely circumstantial—was sufficient, including Hankins’s possession and use of bait bills soon after the robbery and physical trace evidence consistent with the forced entry.
- The court upheld admission of escape evidence as probative of consciousness of guilt and found no reversible error in the related jury instructions when viewed as a whole.
- The court upheld the two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on Hankins’s escape while awaiting trial.
- The court remanded for resentencing because the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by failing to group the bank-robbery and escape counts, given the escape’s role in the obstruction adjustment.
- The court also remanded for the district court to reconsider restitution in conjunction with resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence alone may suffice.
- Evidence of escape from lawful custody after being charged may be admissible to show consciousness of guilt, subject to limiting instructions and Rule 403 balancing.
- A district court’s refusal to give a proposed instruction is not reversible error if the charge as a whole adequately and correctly states the law and permits the defense theory to be argued.
- Escape while awaiting trial can support an obstruction-of-justice enhancement where it willfully interferes with the prosecution.
- Sentencing counts must be grouped under the Guidelines when required to avoid double counting, including when conduct underlying one count is used as an adjustment affecting another count’s offense level.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld Hankins’s convictions and key trial rulings, including use of escape evidence and an obstruction enhancement, but required resentencing because the district court misapplied the Guidelines grouping rules and directed renewed consideration of restitution.


United States v. Hankins, 931 F.2d 1256 (8th Cir. 1991)