Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01002/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Howard Newman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United St.ates Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

FEB O 61989 

ROBERTL. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-1002 

v. (D.C. No. 87-30008-01) 

( D. Kan. ) 

WILLIAM HOWARD NEWMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

The parties to this appeal have waived oral argument. 

Therefore, the cause is ordered submitted on the briefs. See Fed. 

R . App . P • 3 4 ( f ) • 

Defendant William Newman was convicted under 18 u.s.c. 

S 75l(a) for escaping from federal custody. He argues on appeal 

that (1) his trial counsel was inadequate because the counsel 

failed to pursue sufficiently an alcohol impairment defense, and 

(2) Rule 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is unlawful 

because it interfered with his ability to prove that he lacked the 

mental state required for conviction. 

Appellate Case: 88-1002 Document: 01019962617 Date Filed: 02/06/1989 Page: 1 
Appellant first contends that his trial counsel did not 

adequately pursue an alcohol impairment defense. This essentially 

is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The standard for 

establishing ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984): 

First, the defendant must show that counsel's 

performance was deficient. This requires showing that 

counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not 

functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by 

the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show 

that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. 

This requires showing that counsel's errors were so 

serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a 

trial whose result is reliable. 

Appellant has failed to show that his trial counsel's 

performance was deficient. On the contrary, the record reveals 

that his counsel vigorously pursued an alcohol impairment defense. 

His counsel successfully proposed and argued for jury instructions 

stating that alcohol impairment was a defense to the crime and 

could have prevented appellant from forming the requisite intent 

in this case. (Doc. 25, Instruction No. 11.) Counsel also 

presented an expert witness at trial who had extensive experience 

with alcohol and drug abuse. The expert testified that appellant 

was a chronic alcoholic and that appellant had been drinking on 

the day of the escape. (Tr. at 40-53.) Because appellant fails 

to point out any serious errors made by counsel in presenting an 

alcohol impairment defense, we find that appellant has not met the 

Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Although not listed as an issue at the beginning of 

appellant's brief, much of his brief attacks Rule 704(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 704(b) provides: 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1002 Document: 01019962617 Date Filed: 02/06/1989 Page: 2 
No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental 

state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may 

state an opinion or inference as to whether the 

defendant did or did not have the mental state or 

condition constituting an element of the crime charged 

or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are 

matters for the trier of fact alone. 

Appellant contends that Rule 704(b) improperly interfered 

with his ability to elicit testimony from his expert witness 

because appellant was prevented from posing hypothetical questions 

to the witness, and that he was thereby prevented from proving 

that he did not possess the mental state required for conviction. 

Presumably, this is an argument that Rule 704(b) violated 

appellant's right to procedural due process. Appellant also 

appears to argue that Rule 704(b) is contrary to§ 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, 29 u.s.c. § 794. 

Our review of the record reveals that the trial judge never 

made any rulings pursuant to Rule 704(b), and appellant did not 

make any objections, motions, or offers of proof relating to that 

rule. Because the validity of that rule was never raised below, 

we wili not consider it on appeal. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 

U.S. 106, 120 (1976); United States v. Richard, 738 F.2d 1120, 

1121 n.2 (10th Cir. 1984). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1002 Document: 01019962617 Date Filed: 02/06/1989 Page: 3