Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03856/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03856-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Nicholson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3856

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Marco Nicholson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2004

Filed: November 22, 2004

___________

Before SMITH, LAY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On the evening of October 2, 2002, St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

Officers Jerone Jackson, Mark Biondolino, and Sergeant Shaun Dace were on routine

patrol in the area of the LaSalle Housing Complex. As the officers approached a

four-way intersection, they observed a green Ford Explorer run a stop sign as it

headed west. As the Explorer passed the officers, they observed that Marco

Nicholson, a person the officers knew from past encounters, was the driver of the

vehicle. Officer Jackson immediately became suspicious because from his personal

knowledge of previous encounters, he did not think Nicholson owned a vehicle. 

Appellate Case: 03-3856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2004 Entry ID: 1836523 
1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, presiding.

-2-

The officers made a U-turn and began following the Explorer. Nicholson drove

slowly into a dead-end parking lot. As the vehicle was still moving, Nicholson

jumped out of the vehicle and began running north. The Explorer then struck a fence

and came to a stop, upon which two of the vehicle’s passengers emerged -- one

running south and the other in the same general direction as Nicholson. The officers

left their vehicle and while Officer Biondolino and Sergeant Dace ran south after one

of the vehicle’s passengers, Officer Jackson turned on his flashlight and ran north

after Nicholson and the other passenger. 

As Officer Jackson ran behind Nicholson, he saw Nicholson reach into his left

pants pocket and remove a small-frame silver handgun. Officer Jackson ordered

Nicholson to stop running and drop his weapon, but Nicholson continued to run. As

Officer Jackson followed Nicholson around a corner, he saw Nicholson place a

firearm underneath a bush. Officer Jackson recovered the firearm and eventually

caught Nicholson. Nicholson was charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm. 

Prior to trial, Nicholson filed a motion in limine to prohibit the Government

from using evidence that Nicholson was driving a stolen vehicle when the police

spotted him. According to Nicholson, evidence that the vehicle was stolen was not

relevant to show that he unlawfully possessed a firearm. Even if it had minimal

relevance, Nicholson contended that it should be excluded at trial because its

probative value would be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The district court granted Nicholson’s motion in limine.1

At trial, defense counsel argued that because of the distance between Officer

Jackson and Nicholson, the presence of another of the Explorer’s occupants running

in the same direction, and the fact that it was evening and visibility had decreased,

Appellate Case: 03-3856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2004 Entry ID: 1836523 
-3-

Officer Jackson would have been distracted and could not have observed Nicholson

removing a handgun from his pocket. In his testimony, Officer Jackson stated that

he saw Nicholson remove the handgun because, despite the fact of potential

distractions, he was focused exclusively upon Nicholson. Officer Jackson stated that

the reason for his focus was that Nicholson was the driver of the vehicle, and he

believed that Nicholson had committed a felony by stealing the vehicle. 

Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence acts to exclude probative evidence

if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Fed. R. Evid. 403. Probative evidence may be excluded if it would lead the factfinder to declare guilt on collateral grounds outside of proof specific to the charged

offense. “The critical issue is the degree of unfairness of the prejudicial evidence and

whether it tends to support a decision on an improper basis.” United States v. Payne,

119 F.3d 637, 645 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 987 (1997). The district

court is given broad discretion when gauging the possibility of unfair prejudice, and

will be reversed only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Christians, 200 F.3d

1124, 1127 (8th Cir. 1999). 

Nicholson contends that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the

jury to hear Officer Jackson’s statement that he believed the vehicle was stolen.

However, the Government did not present evidence that the vehicle was in fact stolen.

Officer Jackson’s statement was only presented to demonstrate why Officer Jackson

was chasing Nicholson and why his attention was focused primarily on Nicholson.

Presented in this manner, Officer Jackson’s testimony was relevant because it was

probative of whether he would have seen Nicholson remove a handgun from his

pocket. Moreover, it tends to rebut Nicholson’s argument that Officer Jackson was

distracted. 

In this situation, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by

allowing Officer Jackson to testify about his belief regarding the vehicle’s ownership.

Appellate Case: 03-3856 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2004 Entry ID: 1836523 
-4-

The statements corroborated Officer Jackson’s testimony that he observed all of

Nicholson’s actions. Officer Jackson’s testimony was also limited to his beliefs; the

Government did not seek to show that the vehicle was in fact stolen. We find that

Officer Jackson’s testimony was properly limited and was appropriately admitted.

The reasons for Officer Jackson’s actions were highly probative of the reliability of

his observations, and were not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice to Nicholson. 

Judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3856 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/22/2004 Entry ID: 1836523