## Facts

- Abner Youts and Richard Nesbitt entered a Union Pacific railyard in Wichita, Kansas, and boarded two connected, idling locomotives.
- They manipulated the controls and learned how to move the locomotives.
- Youts drove the locomotives to a point near his home, let Nesbitt off, then decided to send the train back through town.
- Youts put the locomotives in reverse at full throttle and exited, leaving the train unmanned.
- The driverless train reached a downtown curve posted for about 10 mph at approximately 56 mph and derailed.
- No one was injured, but the derailment caused $234,145 in damage and cleanup costs.
- Tips led investigators to the men; Nesbitt confessed, pled guilty, and testified against Youts.
- Youts was convicted by a jury in the District of Kansas of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1992 (pre-1996), sentenced to 46 months’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay $234,145 restitution.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1992 requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to wreck or derail a train, or whether it is satisfied by intentional conduct whose natural and probable consequence is a wreck or derailment.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find the mens rea required by § 1992.
3. Whether the jury instructions misstated the statute’s intent requirement.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held § 1992 does not require specific intent to cause a derailment; the statute is satisfied if the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct he knew or should have known would probably result in derailment.
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the government, the court found the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find the requisite mental state.
- The court held the jury instructions, read as a whole, adequately stated the governing mens rea standard and did not constitute reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1992 (pre-1996), the government need not prove the defendant subjectively desired the precise harm (a derailment); it is enough to show intentional conduct where derailment is the natural, probable, and practically certain consequence.
- A jury may infer the required mental state from the obvious dangerousness of the defendant’s actions, including leaving an unmanned locomotive traveling at high speed toward conditions likely to cause a wreck.
- Appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency asks whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is viewed in the government’s favor.
- Jury instructions are evaluated as a whole; instructions requiring “knowingly and willfully” conduct and permitting inference from natural-and-probable consequences may properly convey a general-intent standard consistent with § 1992.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld Youts’s conviction for wrecking a train, concluding that § 1992 does not demand proof of a specific intent to derail, and that intentionally sending an unmanned locomotive at full throttle through a city supported an inference that derailment was a foreseeable and practically certain result.


United States v. Youts, 229 F.3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2000)