Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04093/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Warren R. Rogers
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

lhiited F I L E D 

States Caurr of A 

Tenrh c1·,. . PJ>eals ~ • CUlt 

MAY 2 3 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOBCKB 

Clerk R 

v. ) 

) 

WARREN R. ROGERS, ) 

No. 89-4093 

(D.C. No. 89-CR-0033S) 

(D. Utah) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Warren R. Rogers appeals his conviction for assaulting a 

federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. We affirm. 

On December 28, 1988 U.S. Postal Carrier Val Alder refused to 

deliver mail to the home of appellant Rogers because there was a 

large dog loose in the front yard of the appellant. An argument 

between Alder and Rogers ensued, and Alder attempted to drive away 

in his jeep. Rogers grabbed the outside of the door of the jeep 

and continued to hold it as Alder accelerated to approximately 15 

m.p.h. When Alder slowed down at the next house to deliver the 

mail, Rogers fell off and rolled into a snow bank. When Alder 

stepped out of the jeep, Rogers kicked and punched him 

approximately eight to eleven times. Alder did not strike back. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-4093 Document: 01019970292 Date Filed: 05/23/1990 Page: 1 
Rogers first argues that the district court erred by not 

giving four of Rogers' requested jury instructions on the issue of 

whether Alder had departed from the course and scope of his 

employment. We disagree. The district judge instructed the jury 

that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time of 

the assault, the victim was "acting within the scope of what he 

was employed to do," and was "not involved in a personal venture 

or frolic on his own." We hold that this instruction was proper 

and that no further instruction on this issue was necessary. 

Rogers also argues that the court erred in admitting the 

testimony of Postmaster Kay Peterson, who testified as to a 

conversation he had with Rogers some time after the assault on 

Alder. Rogers argues that Peterson's testimony was irrelevant to 

the issues in the case. We disagree. 

We review the trial court's evidentiary ruling under an abuse 

of discretion standard. See United States~ Record, 873 F.2d 

1363, 1373 (10th Cir. 1989). Peterson testified to Rogers' 

admissions regarding the incident in question. Rogers' own 

admissions regarding the facts and circumstances of the assault on 

Alder are certainly relevant to what occurred. The probative 

nature of his remarks also outweighed any prejudice to him that 

may have resulted from the heated nature of his remarks. We hold 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it 

permitted Peterson's testimony. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-4093 Document: 01019970292 Date Filed: 05/23/1990 Page: 2