Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0476-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernell BUTCHER Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-3440.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted April 10, 2001.
    Decided July 5, 2001.
    Before LOKEN, Circuit Judge, and GOLDBERG and BOGUE, Judges.
    
    
      
      . The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
    
      
      . The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
    
      
      . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(b), the Chief Judge certified the existence of a judicial emergency necessitating the designation of a panel consisting of fewer than two members of the Court of Appeals.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Vernell Butcher, was convicted by a jury on June 13, 2000, of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l)(1994). Butcher received a 300-month sentence and a five-year supervised release term.

Butcher appeals the decision of the district court to deny his motion for a mistrial based on the allegedly improper remarks made by the government prosecutor during closing argument. Additionally, Butcher claims that the district court’s use of the Eighth Circuit’s Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction impermissibly lowered the government’s burden of proof. We affirm the decision of the district court.

After a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the trial court did not commit error by denying Butcher’s motion for a mistrial, see United States v. Wadlington, 233 F.3d 1067, 1077 (8th Cir.2000) (In assessing the prejudicial impact of potential prosecutorial misconduct, the Court considers (1) the cumulative effect of the misconduct, (2) the strength of the properly admitted evidence, and (3) the curative actions taken by the district court), or by giving the jury the Eighth Circuit’s Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction. See United States v. Harris, 974 F.2d 84, 85 (8th Cir.l992)(Eighth Circuit’s explicit approval of Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction). Under Eighth Circuit Rule 47B, no further commentary is warranted. 
      
      . The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.