United States v. Ralph Emeron Taken Alive, II
262 F.3d 711, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18711, 57 Fed. R. Serv. 1545 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, a court cannot exclude relevant character evidence of a victim's reputation for violence, offered to support a defendant's self-defense claim, merely because it creates a perceived procedural unfairness to the prosecution after other evidence against the defendant was excluded.
Facts:
- On December 16, 1999, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Officer Yellow responded to a report of an altercation at a bar involving Ralph Emeron Taken Alive, II.
- Officer Yellow located Taken Alive on a nearby street, arrested him for public intoxication, and directed him to the police car.
- According to Officer Yellow, as he opened the car door, Taken Alive grabbed him by the throat and pushed him against the patrol car, initiating a fight.
- According to Taken Alive, Officer Yellow twisted his arm without provocation, slammed the car door on his head, and began hitting him, causing Taken Alive to defend himself.
- The physical struggle continued until Taken Alive broke free and ran towards his father's house.
- Officer Yellow pursued Taken Alive, caught up with him on the porch, and, after another brief struggle, handcuffed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Ralph Emeron Taken Alive, II was charged in U.S. District Court with assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer.
- Prior to trial, the district court granted Taken Alive's motion in limine to exclude evidence of his four prior incidents involving assaults on law enforcement officers.
- The government then filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony about Officer Yellow's use of excessive force, on which the court reserved its ruling.
- At trial, the district court excluded Taken Alive's proffered character evidence regarding Officer Yellow’s reputation for aggression, finding it unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
- A jury found Taken Alive guilty.
- The district court sentenced Taken Alive to thirty-three months imprisonment.
- Taken Alive (appellant) timely appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 a district court abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by excluding evidence of a victim's reputation for violence, offered to support a defendant's self-defense claim, on the grounds that admitting it would be 'unfair' to the prosecution because evidence of the defendant's prior assaults had also been excluded?
Opinions:
Majority - Bright, Circuit Judge
Yes. The district court abused its discretion by excluding the character evidence. When a defendant raises a self-defense claim, reputation evidence of the victim’s violent character is highly relevant and material to show the victim was the likely aggressor, particularly when there are no other eyewitnesses. The district court misapplied Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by excluding the evidence on the basis that it was 'unfair' to the government. Rule 403's prohibition on 'unfair prejudice' refers to evidence that has an 'undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis,' not evidence that simply hurts a party's case or creates a perceived imbalance because other evidence against the defendant was excluded. The court's desire to 'level the playing field' was an improper basis for excluding crucial and otherwise admissible evidence for the defense.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the meaning of 'unfair prejudice' under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, emphasizing that it does not encompass general procedural unfairness or tactical disadvantage. The ruling reinforces that a defendant's right to present a complete defense, including relevant character evidence of a victim's violent nature, cannot be curtailed simply to balance the scales after other evidentiary rulings favored the defendant. This precedent strengthens a defendant's ability to introduce evidence about an alleged victim's character in self-defense cases, especially in one-on-one altercations with law enforcement where credibility is a central issue.
