## Facts

- Charles Ivy ambushed his estranged wife, Patricia Ivy, at her Mississippi home after she returned from a date with Alvin King.
- Ivy shot and killed King and struck Patricia with a pistol, rendering her unconscious.
- After she regained consciousness, Ivy directed Patricia to drive; he disposed of his pistol at a relative’s home, returned with her to her house to retrieve cocaine, and then traveled with her from Mississippi into Tennessee, where they stayed at a motel.
- The pair spent about two days at Ivy’s sister’s home in Tennessee; Patricia did not seek help or attempt to escape despite apparent opportunities.
- They then traveled through additional states for several days; Patricia at times engaged in sexual intercourse with Ivy.
- The defense argued Patricia voluntarily accompanied Ivy and was not transported against her will.
- Patricia testified her compliance was driven by fear based on a history of mental and physical abuse, fear Ivy would kill her and her daughter, hostility from Ivy’s relatives, and knowledge that Ivy could make and detonate a pipe bomb.
- A jury convicted Ivy of interstate kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201) and carrying explosives during the commission of a federal felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2)), among other offenses.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the interstate kidnapping conviction that Patricia was held or transported across state lines “against her will,” despite her failure to flee and periods of apparent cooperation.
2. Whether § 844(h)(2) requires the jury to find the defendant carried explosives “during and in relation to” the underlying felony, and whether the district court erred by omitting an “in relation to” element from its instruction.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Patricia was transported against her will, given the initial violence and ongoing coercion and fear.
- The court held § 844(h)(2) does not contain an “in relation to” element; proof that explosives were carried “during” the commission of a federal felony is sufficient.
- The district court properly denied Ivy’s motion for judgment of acquittal and did not err in its § 844(h)(2) jury instruction.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the appellate court views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- For federal kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1201, “against the victim’s will” may be shown by threats, fear, and psychological coercion, not only by physical restraint; apparent acquiescence may be consistent with coercion.
- Credibility choices and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict are for the jury, and an appellate court does not reweigh them on sufficiency review.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2), the government need only prove the defendant carried an explosive during the commission of a prosecutable federal felony; the statute does not require proof the explosive furthered or was related to the felony.
- When Congress includes limiting language in one statute (e.g., “during and in relation to” in § 924(c)) but omits it in another (§ 844(h)(2)), courts generally do not insert the omitted requirement.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit sustained Ivy’s kidnapping conviction by treating the victim’s continued compliance and failure to escape as potentially coerced by abuse and fear, and it upheld the explosives conviction by applying § 844(h)(2) as written, requiring only a temporal connection between carrying explosives and committing a federal felony.


United States v. Ivy, 929 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1991)