United States v. Merritt
Not Specified (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The facts and circumstances of a defendant's prior drunk driving incidents, not just the convictions themselves, are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove malice aforethought in a second-degree murder charge resulting from a subsequent alcohol-related vehicular homicide, provided their probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Facts:
- On August 3, 2016, Timothy Merritt, while intoxicated, drove his vehicle in the wrong lane of traffic within the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation.
- Merritt's vehicle crashed head-on into a vehicle occupied by Cecil Vijil, Sallie Vijil, and their son Creighton Vijil.
- Cecil Vijil died at the scene of the accident, Sallie Vijil sustained serious injuries, and Creighton Vijil suffered minor injuries.
- Police officers at the scene observed Merritt to be intoxicated, with bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, and found empty and full beer cans in his truck; his blood alcohol level was later estimated to be between .23 and .25 at the time of the crash.
- In December 2012, Officer Grant Keams observed Merritt driving in the northbound lane of a four-lane highway while traveling southbound, forcing multiple vehicles to halt or pull over to avoid collision, and Merritt vomited and threw an empty beer can out the window.
- In March 2014, security officer Brett Von Laner observed Merritt stumbling, smelling of alcohol, and having poor balance and bloodshot eyes near a gas pump at a travel center, leading to his arrest for intoxication, and officers subsequently found an empty beer can and a six-pack of beer in his truck.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Timothy Merritt in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado with second-degree murder for the death of Cecil Vijil and assault resulting in serious bodily injury for the injuries sustained by Sallie Vijil.
- Prior to trial, Merritt objected to the government's intention to introduce evidence of three other drunk-driving incidents under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).
- The district court overruled Merritt's objections in part, deciding to allow testimony about the facts and circumstances of the 2012 and 2014 incidents, and also the November 2016 incident.
- A jury in the district court convicted Merritt on both counts.
- Merritt, the defendant, appealed his murder conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing that the district court improperly allowed testimony about his prior drunk-driving incidents.
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 404(b) permit the admission of the specific facts and circumstances of a defendant's prior drunk driving incidents, beyond just the fact of conviction, to establish malice aforethought in a second-degree murder charge arising from a subsequent alcohol-related vehicular homicide, and if so, did the district court err in admitting such evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Eid, Circuit Judge
Yes, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) permits the admission of the specific facts and circumstances of a defendant's prior drunk driving incidents, beyond just the fact of conviction, to establish malice aforethought in a second-degree murder charge arising from a subsequent alcohol-related vehicular homicide. The court found that Rule 404(b) is an inclusive rule, admitting all evidence of other crimes or acts except that which tends to prove only criminal disposition. Malice aforethought, required for a second-degree murder conviction, can be established by conduct that is reckless and wanton, demonstrating an awareness of a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm. Citing United States v. Tan, the court reiterated that prior drunk driving convictions are highly probative of malice because a person with such convictions 'knows better than most' the substantial risks involved in driving under the influence. The court rejected Merritt's narrow reading that only the fact of conviction is admissible, holding that the 'facts and circumstances' of past incidents are admissible if relevant to a proper purpose, such as proving the defendant’s awareness of the dangers of drunk driving. The specific details of Merritt's 2012 DUI (driving the wrong way on a busy highway, forcing others to take evasive action, vomiting) and his 2014 intoxication arrest (stumbling, slurring speech, alcohol in vehicle) were highly probative of his awareness that his ability to control an automobile became seriously impaired when intoxicated, and that driving drunk placed others' lives at risk. These details also helped rebut Merritt's argument about habitual drinkers having better alcohol tolerance. The court concluded that the probative value of these facts in establishing malice aforethought substantially outweighed any unfair prejudice under Rule 403, and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them. Finally, the court found that any error in admitting evidence of Merritt's November 2016 arrest, which occurred after the August 2016 crash, was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt established by the 2012, 2014, and August 2016 incidents, especially considering the proper limiting instructions given to the jury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) in vehicular homicide cases by affirming that the specific 'facts and circumstances' of prior bad acts, and not merely the existence of convictions, are admissible to prove a defendant's knowledge and intent (malice aforethought). This ruling reinforces the Tenth Circuit's interpretation of 404(b) as an inclusive rule, allowing detailed prior conduct to demonstrate an awareness of risk. The decision expands the scope of evidence prosecutors can introduce to establish the mental state required for serious charges like second-degree murder stemming from drunk driving, potentially leading to more extensive historical evidence being presented to juries to prove a pattern of reckless disregard. It also sets a high bar for overturning such admissions on appeal, emphasizing the wide discretion of trial courts in Rule 403 balancing.
