Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01548/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01548-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sterling Killings
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1548

___________

United States of America, *

*

 * Appeal from the United States Appellee,

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Sterling Killings, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2004

Filed: January 31, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sterling Killings appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, this court affirms.

Killings's main argument is that the district court1

 erred in refusing to admit

into evidence the government's memoranda—original and amended—outlining

evidence it anticipated to offer at a suppression hearing. The memoranda conflict

Appellate Case: 04-1548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2005 Entry ID: 1861226 
2

Killings's motion to supplement the record on appeal is granted.

-2-

about two facts. At the hearing, the Assistant U.S. Attorney explained that she filed

the amended memorandum because "I noticed some factual errors" in the original

one. At trial, the district court excluded the memoranda, preventing crossexamination of a police officer about inconsistencies between them and the officer's

trial testimony. Killings asserts that these prior memoranda by the government are

non-hearsay admissions by a party-opponent under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B). In

this case, the government never manifested its adoption or belief in the truth of the

facts in the memoranda because the government at most only "anticipates" what the

facts would be, and within two days corrected the anticipated facts. See Fed. R. Evid.

801(d)(2)(B). In sum, the memoranda are unquestionably hearsay as they are

statements, other than by the declarant while testifying at trial, offered in evidence for

the truth of the matter. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The district court did not err in

refusing to admit the memoranda. See Fed. R. Evid. 802.

Killings further argues that the government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373

U.S. 83 (1963), because it did not disclose the information upon which it made

inconsistent statements in the memoranda. Additionally, he contends that the court

erred in denying his motion to exclude expert testimony based upon the government's

failure to give timely notice under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G), and abused its

discretion in refusing to grant a continuance after denying the motion.2

 Finally,

Killings asserts that the district court plainly erred because the government's crossexamination of a defense witness infringed the jury's right to make credibility

determinations. 

Having reviewed the record and the applicable legal principles, this court finds

no error. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2005 Entry ID: 1861226