United States v. Taken Alive

262 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2001)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Officer Yellow responded to a report of an altercation at a bar on the Sioux Indian Reservation. D was intoxicated, had been in an argument with other bar patrons, and had just left the bar. Officer Yellow saw D walking on a nearby street and stopped him and, after a brief conversation, arrested him. As he opened the rear door, D pulled free, grabbed Officer Yellow by the throat, and pushed him up against the side of the patrol car. Officer Yellow felt he was losing consciousness and so he started punching D. D released his grip on Officer Yellow's neck but the fighting continued. D broke free and ran toward his father's house. Officer Yellow caught up to him on the porch of D's father's house. After a brief struggle, Officer Yellow handcuffed D and took him into custody. D testified that Officer Yellow grabbed his arm and twisted it behind his back, even though D offered no resistance. Then, as Taken Alive was getting into the patrol car, Officer Yellow slammed the car door on his head, and D fell to the ground. Officer Yellow started hitting him with some unknown object and D tried to defend himself. D also tried to flee by pulling Officer Yellow's jacket over the Officer's head and then ran toward his father's house. Officer Yellow caught D at the house, knocked D to the ground, and hit him with a baton. Then Officer Yellow handcuffed D. The district court granted D's motion in limine to exclude 404(b) evidence of D’s four prior incidents involving the assault of law enforcement officers. P made a motion in limine to exclude hearsay testimony about Officer Yellow's use of excessive force. D objected and the district court reserved ruling until trial. D argued that he acted in self-defense. D tried to present character evidence about Officer Yellow's aggressive and violent tendencies under Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(2) and 405(a). The district court excluded the evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403, finding it highly prejudicial. The district court reasoned that it would be unfair and misleading to allow the jury to think that D had never been violent toward law enforcement officers while at the same time indicating that Officer Yellow is a violent person. D was found guilty. D appealed.