United States v. Ince
21 F.3d 576 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The prosecution may not use impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement as a mere subterfuge to introduce otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence, particularly when the statement's prejudicial impact on the defendant substantially outweighs its probative value for impeachment.
Facts:
- After a scuffle at a rap concert at Fort Belvoir, a black male wearing an orange shirt fired a pistol twice in the parking lot.
- Military police stopped a van carrying Nigel Ince and Angela Neumann.
- Two eyewitnesses identified Ince as the shooter after he was asked to put on his orange T-shirt.
- Neumann gave a signed, unsworn statement to Military Policeman Roger D. Stevens, in which she stated that Ince had admitted to firing the shots.
- Ince's defense theory was that another man, Frank Kelly, who was also a young black male wearing an orange jacket, was the shooter.
- Five days later, the FBI found a nine-millimeter pistol, the same type used in the shooting, hidden in Frank Kelly's bedroom.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Nigel D. Ince in federal district court for assault with a dangerous weapon.
- At the first trial, the government called Angela Neumann, who testified that she could not recall Ince's remarks after the shooting.
- The government then called MP Stevens, who testified about Neumann's prior statement that Ince had confessed.
- The first trial ended in a hung jury, resulting in a mistrial.
- At a second trial, the government again called Neumann, who again testified that she could not recall the details of Ince's remarks.
- Over defense counsel's repeated objections, the government called MP Stevens to testify about Neumann's prior statement containing Ince's confession.
- The jury at the second trial convicted Ince.
- Ince appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of a police officer's testimony, recounting a witness's prior out-of-court statement about the defendant's confession, constitute reversible error when the government's primary purpose in calling the witness was to introduce this otherwise inadmissible hearsay under the guise of impeachment?
Opinions:
Majority - Murnaghan, Circuit Judge
Yes, the admission of the officer's testimony was reversible error. The government may not use impeachment as a mere subterfuge to place otherwise inadmissible hearsay before the jury. Here, the prosecution called Neumann knowing from the first trial that she would claim memory loss regarding Ince's alleged confession. Her in-court testimony did not affirmatively damage the government's case; she merely failed to provide the helpful testimony the government sought. Therefore, the subsequent testimony from MP Stevens about her prior statement had no legitimate impeachment value. Under a Federal Rule of Evidence 403 analysis, the extreme prejudicial impact of introducing an alleged confession substantially outweighed the nonexistent probative value for impeachment. This tactic was an impermissible attempt to circumvent the hearsay rule, and the resulting error was not harmless given the centrality of the identification issue and the closeness of the case, as evidenced by the first trial ending in a hung jury.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the prohibition established in United States v. Morlang against using impeachment of one's own witness as a pretext to introduce inadmissible hearsay. It solidifies the application of the Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balancing test in this context, clarifying that there is little to no probative impeachment value when a witness's testimony is merely unhelpful rather than affirmatively damaging to the calling party's case. The decision signals to lower courts that they should be highly skeptical of this prosecutorial tactic, especially when the hearsay involves a defendant's confession, which is considered uniquely prejudicial.
