## Facts

- James Howard Van Metre met Holly Ann Blake, a waitress, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
- On September 26, 1991, witnesses saw Blake voluntarily enter Van Metre’s car; they drove away from Pennsylvania.
- Van Metre later admitted he took Blake to a farm in Maryland, strangled her to death after an argument during sexual activity, and that she struggled for several minutes.
- He attempted to destroy evidence by burning Blake’s body and belongings and disposing of the ashes near a river.
- Police investigation quickly focused on Van Metre after Blake was reported missing and her car was found where she had last been seen.
- About eleven days earlier, Van Metre had kidnapped and sexually assaulted Mary Yohe; evidence of that conduct and his related conviction was introduced at the federal kidnapping trial to prove intent.
- Van Metre was arrested in Tennessee on valid warrants and later gave statements confessing to the Blake killing and to crimes against Yohe after receiving Miranda warnings.
- A federal jury in the District of Maryland convicted Van Metre of kidnapping Blake (18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)); he pleaded guilty to soliciting another inmate to commit a violent crime (18 U.S.C. § 373), involving a plan to kill Yohe.
- The district court imposed life imprisonment for the kidnapping and a consecutive 20-year term for solicitation.

## Issues

1. Whether Van Metre’s confessions should have been suppressed as involuntary or as the product of an unlawful arrest or improper delay.
2. Whether admitting evidence of the prior Yohe kidnapping/sexual assault violated Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Van Metre’s request for a bench trial.
4. Whether the life sentence for kidnapping and the Guidelines calculation for solicitation were lawful.

## Decision

- Affirmed the kidnapping conviction.
- Held Van Metre’s confessions were admissible because the arrest was lawful and the statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
- Upheld admission of Yohe evidence under Rule 404(b) to prove intent and found Rule 403 did not require exclusion given probative value, temporal proximity, similarity, and limiting instructions.
- Found no abuse of discretion in denying a bench trial request.
- Affirmed the life sentence for kidnapping.
- Vacated the 20-year solicitation sentence and remanded for resentencing due to a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines.

## Legal Principles

- A confession is not suppressible as a “fruit” of arrest when the arrest is supported by valid warrants; voluntariness turns on the totality of circumstances, including Miranda warnings and absence of coercion.
- Rule 404(b) permits evidence of similar prior acts to prove intent (and not character), particularly when intent is contested.
- Under Rule 403, highly prejudicial evidence may still be admitted when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; limiting instructions are relevant to that balance.
- A defendant has no absolute right to a bench trial; the district court’s refusal is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Sentences must be calculated under the correct Guidelines provisions, including proper use of base offense levels and cross-references for inchoate offenses such as solicitation; miscalculation requires vacatur and resentencing.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld Van Metre’s kidnapping conviction and life sentence, ruling that his confessions were voluntary and that prior-act evidence was properly admitted to prove intent, but it vacated and remanded the solicitation sentence because the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines.


United States v. Van Metre, 150 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 1998)