|
United
States v. Staggs, 553 F.2d 1073 (1977)
Facts:
Df was wanted for desertion of the U.S. Marine Corps.
The FBI located him in Illinois in an apartment with his wife.
She let the FBI agents inside. One agent testified that
Staggs hid behind the door with a gun and threatened to shot him,
the other that the Df was going to shoot himself. Staggs
testified that he threatened to shoot himself rather than return
to the Marines.
Issue:
Whether the trial court committed reversible error by excluding
the testimony of a psychologist who examined the Df, who offered
testimony that the Df would more likely hurt himself than others,
in obtaining a conviction for assaulting a federal officer with a
deadly weapon?
Holding:
Yes.
Procedure:
Conviction and sentenced as a youthful offender to an indefinite
term. 7th Cir. Reversed and Remanded for new
trial.
Rule:
Relevant evidence is defined by FRE 401 as “evidence having
any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Rationale:
A determination of the role the df’s mental state plays in
the prosecution for assaulting a federal officer with a deadly
weapon. If it is a general intent crime then the govt would
not need to prove anything about the df’s state of mind. If
the crime is a specific intent crime, the govt would need to
prove that the df subjectively intended to put the federal
officer in apprehension of bodily harm. The statute
provides no clue whether specific or general. U.S. v.
Feola established that specific intent to commit assault is a
prerequisite to conviction under the law the df was convicted.
Therefore, the df should not have been convicted unless the govt
demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the Df subjectively
intended to put the agent in apprehension of bodily harm, and the
Dr’s testimony, as an expert, was relevant to the Df’s
theory.
Pl
A: The Dr’s proffered testimony is of questionable relevance
and probative value, and introduction of expert testimony related
to mental disease, defect, or other condition bearing on the
mental state requires notice.
Df
A: Under FRE 401 the Df’s testimony is relevant because the
crime is a specific intent crime and the testimony bears on
whether the crime was more likely than not, committed.
|
