United States of America v. Kolby Kristiansen
901 F.2d 1463 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits an expert to testify about the characteristics of a defendant's mental disease and whether those characteristics would affect a person's ability to appreciate their actions, as this describes the disease itself rather than stating a prohibited opinion on the ultimate issue of the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime.
Facts:
- Kolby Kristiansen was a federal inmate transferred to a halfway house prior to his anticipated release.
- On June 1, 1988, Kristiansen called the halfway house to report he was sick and would not be returning that night.
- He called again on each of the next two days, still claiming illness, and was told to return to the facility for assistance with medical treatment.
- Kristiansen failed to return to the halfway house as instructed.
- On June 6, 1988, United States marshals arrested Kristiansen outside his wife's residence.
- At trial, Kristiansen's defense was that he was under the influence of cocaine and suffering from psychosis, which prevented him from forming the willful intent to escape.
- Kristiansen told an arresting marshal that he could have remained 'on the run a lot longer' if he did not care for his family.
Procedural Posture:
- Kolby Kristiansen was charged with escaping from custody under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) in federal trial court.
- At trial, the defense raised an insanity defense.
- The trial court sustained the prosecution’s objection to a defense question asking its expert witness if Kristiansen's alleged mental disease 'would' affect an individual’s ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts.
- The defense did not object when the prosecution asked the same expert witness on cross-examination if the defendant was 'legally accountable' for his acts.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- Kristiansen (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing the trial court made erroneous evidentiary rulings.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) prohibit a defense expert from testifying whether a defendant's alleged mental disease 'would' affect an individual’s ability to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of their acts?
Opinions:
Majority - Heaney, Senior Circuit Judge
No, the rule does not prohibit such a question. While Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) bars experts from stating an opinion on whether the defendant possessed the requisite mental state for the crime, it does not prohibit testimony that describes the qualities and symptoms of a mental disease. Asking whether a disease 'would' affect a person's ability to appreciate their actions relates to the characteristics of the disease itself, not the defendant's specific culpability at the time of the crime, and leaves the ultimate issue for the jury to decide. Although the trial court erred by excluding this question, the error was not prejudicial because the defense was allowed to ask a sufficiently similar question using the word 'could.' Further, when the prosecution improperly asked an expert about legal accountability, the defense's failure to object waived the issue; one party's violation of the rule does not entitle the other party to commit a reciprocal violation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of permissible expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) in insanity defense cases. It establishes that experts can describe the general effects of a mental disease ('this disease would cause X') without impermissibly opining on the ultimate issue of the defendant's specific mental state at the time of the offense. The case also provides important procedural guidance, holding that the proper remedy for an opponent's violation of an evidentiary rule is a timely objection, not an attempt to 'even the score' with a retaliatory violation. The court's harmless error finding underscores that minor distinctions in questioning may not be sufficient to overturn a conviction on appeal if the core of the expert's testimony was successfully presented to the jury.
Unlock the full brief for United States of America v. Kolby Kristiansen