## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Adam Leke, a bank employee, for conspiracy to commit bank larceny and bank larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 2113 arising from the theft of about $40,000 from a branch bank’s ATM.
- Late one night, someone accessed the ATM and removed the cash from its currency cassettes. Physical evidence suggested an inside job.
- Only three bank employees had access to the ATM: Patsy Hickerson, Shawn Howard, and Leke.
- The morning before the theft, Leke and Howard stocked the ATM with about $40,000.
- Around lunchtime that day, Leke reportedly went to the ATM alone to fix a printer problem.
- Howard testified that Leke had talked about financial difficulties and plans to leave the bank.
- Bank investigator Scott Coggins testified that Howard appeared honest and forthright in denying involvement, while Leke seemed deceptive and his account did not match investigators’ observations.
- Coggins and investigator Ronnie Gross detained Leke during the investigation. Gross testified that Leke helped locate the stolen cassettes but then said, “I think I’ve hurt myself,” and refused to cooperate further.
- Co-conspirator Andrew Ward testified under a plea agreement that he and Leke planned the theft. Ward described how his share of the money (in $20 bills) funded purchases including a car for his girlfriend and a shopping spree, and that he still had about $8,500 when arrested.
- Leke testified that he was with Ward on the night of the theft but denied participating. Leke’s wife testified they had $600 in $20 bills because they had recently taken out a loan.
- A jury convicted Leke. The district court imposed concurrent 15-month prison terms, three years of supervised release, and $37,570 restitution jointly and severally with Ward.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the government’s favor, was sufficient to support Leke’s convictions for conspiracy to commit bank larceny and bank larceny.
2. Whether the bank-larceny count of the indictment was constitutionally sufficient even though it did not expressly allege that the amount taken exceeded $1,000 (the felony-value element of § 2113(b)).

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Leke guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on limited access to the ATM, the inside-job indicators, testimony about Leke’s financial problems and opportunity, investigators’ testimony about Leke’s deceptive behavior, Leke’s role in locating the cassettes followed by his refusal to continue speaking, and Ward’s testimony describing the scheme and proceeds.
- The court held the indictment was sufficient despite omitting an express allegation that the property exceeded $1,000 in value because Leke did not raise the objection before trial, the indictment otherwise identified the offense and conduct charged, and the omission did not warrant reversal under the applicable standard of review.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, the court asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Credibility determinations are for the jury; accomplice testimony can support a conviction unless it is incredible as a matter of law.
- An indictment must contain the elements of the offense and provide enough notice to allow the defendant to prepare a defense and plead double jeopardy in a later prosecution.
- When an indictment defect is not timely raised before trial, appellate review is limited; a conviction will not be set aside absent a showing that the defect affected substantial rights in the context of the proceedings as a whole.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Leke’s conspiracy and bank-larceny convictions stemming from the $40,000 ATM theft because the trial record provided sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict, and the bank-larceny indictment—though it omitted an express allegation that the amount exceeded $1,000—did not justify reversal given the lack of a pretrial objection and the absence of prejudice under the governing standard of review.


United States v. Leke, 237 Fed. Appx. 54 (2007)