United States v. Mary M.M. Hoffner, M.D.
777 F.2d 1423, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 25160, 19 Fed. R. Serv. 1343 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, lay opinion testimony concerning another person's intent is only admissible if the opinion is rationally based on the witness's own firsthand perception of the underlying events.
Facts:
- In November 1983, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigators were alerted to a large number of Schedule II prescriptions being written by Dr. Mary Hoffner in Fort Collins, Colorado.
- A special DEA agent, posing as a patient, was prescribed large amounts of Seconal, Biphetamine, and Valium by Dr. Hoffner over a short period.
- A former patient of Dr. Hoffner's also received prescriptions for large quantities of Quaalude and Ritalin.
- Dr. Hoffner charged patients receiving these large quantity prescriptions $100 per visit, while her regular patients were charged only $30.
- Dr. Hoffner instructed patients receiving large prescriptions to fill them at different pharmacies to avoid suspicion.
- Dr. Hoffner also provided these patients with names of diseases they could claim to have if questioned by a pharmacist, although she later testified the patients did not actually have these ailments.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Mary Hoffner was charged in federal district court with distributing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- During her jury trial, the court sustained the government's objections and excluded the opinion testimony of three defense witnesses regarding Dr. Hoffner's intent.
- The jury returned a verdict acquitting Dr. Hoffner on two counts but convicting her on fifteen counts.
- Dr. Hoffner (Appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding lay opinion testimony from defense witnesses as to whether the defendant issued prescriptions for a legitimate medical purpose, when those witnesses did not personally observe the defendant's interactions with the patients in question?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrett, Circuit Judge.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Lay opinion testimony is only admissible if it is rationally based on the witness's perception and is helpful to the jury. The defense witnesses—a doctor and two nurses who worked for Dr. Hoffner—were not present in the examining room during the relevant patient consultations, did not witness the physical examinations, and did not see the prescriptions being written. Because their proposed testimony about Dr. Hoffner's intent was not based on any firsthand, rational perception of the events in question, it amounted to mere speculative conclusion rather than a permissible inference. Therefore, the trial court correctly determined that the testimony failed the first requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 701 and was properly excluded.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the trial court's role as a gatekeeper for evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. It clarifies that while courts are generally liberal in admitting lay opinion testimony about another's state of mind, the foundational requirement of personal perception is absolute. The ruling establishes a clear boundary: a witness's general knowledge of a person's character or practices is insufficient to support an opinion about their specific intent during a specific event that the witness did not observe. This precedent solidifies the distinction between a rational inference based on perceived facts and an inadmissible, speculative conclusion.
