Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03586/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03586-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Kentrell Vertner
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3586

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kentrell Vertner

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Council Bluffs

____________

 Submitted: June 24, 2015

Filed: June 30, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kentrell Vertner appeals from the judgment of conviction imposed by the

District Court after a jury found him guilty of an escape charge. Counsel has filed a

1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Southern District of Iowa.

Appellate Case: 14-3586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2015 Entry ID: 4290137 
brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Vertner has filed a pro se

supplemental brief.

After careful review, we reject counsel’s challenge to the District Court’s

refusal to give Vertner’s proposed jury instructions on his duress defense. See United

States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764, 772 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 533 (2011)

(standard of review). The court’s instruction fairly and adequately represented the

law, namely, that it is a defendant’s burden to prove the elements of a duress defense

by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1, 17

(2006) (rejecting the petitioner's contention that the jury instructions erroneously

required her to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence instead of requiring

the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner did not act

under duress). We also reject the argument—advanced in both the Anders brief and

the pro se brief—that the District Court erred in excluding Vertner’s proffered

surrebuttal testimony. Because the government’s rebuttal evidence did not raise a new

matter, the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony. See United

States v. Purkey, 428 F.3d 738, 759 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 975 (2006).

Finally, we have independently reviewed the record in accordance with Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. We affirm the

judgment of the District Court.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2015 Entry ID: 4290137