# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 24 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Co li n J . Boo ne

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

15 , 20 16

Fil ed : J ul y

8, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

C o li n J. Bo on e, a fo rm er Des Mo in es , I owa , p ol ic e of fic er, was co nv ic te d o f

wil lfu ll y de pr iv in g Orv il le Hil l of hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht to be free fro m th e us e

of un reas on ab le fo rce by a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 24 2. 1

Sect io n 2 42 pro vi de s, i n re le va nt pa rt: 1B o o n e ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti n g 2

ev id en ce o f a p rio r ba d a ct an d i n a dm it ti ng cert ai n h ears ay st at em en ts

. W e affi rm

.

I. Back gr ou nd

In th e ear ly m or ni ng ho ur s of Feb ru ary 1 9, 20 13 , Des M oi ne s p ol ic e o ffi cers

Trud y Si m on so n an d Lin ds ey Ken ke l cam e up on th e sc en e of a on e-ca r acci de nt

. Hil l

ha d cras he d hi s va n an d was lying un co ns ci ou s be twee n th e va n’s bu ck et se at s, wit h

hi s he ad res ti ng on th e fir st ro w of ba ck se at s. The of fic ers po un de d on th e win do ws

of th e va n, bu t Hil l di d no t res po nd

. Si m on so n cal le d fo r ba ck -u p, an d Offi cers Co dy

W il li s an d Tan ne r Kli ng e so on arri ve d.

Hil l reg ai ne d co ns ci ou sn es s an d be ga n act in g erra ti cal ly. As th e of fic ers sh on e

th ei r f l a s hl ig ht s in to th e va n, Hil l “ st art ed jum pi ng at ou r li gh ts ” an d sm ack ed th e

win do ws. Afte r be in g or de red to un lo ck th e va n’s do or , Hil l tri ed to dr iv e away. His

ve hi cl e ha d be en da m ag ed in th e acci de nt

, ho wev er, an d tra ve le d on ly a sh or t di st an ce

be fo re co m in g to a st op

. Si m on so n th en ap pr oa c h e d t he dr iv er’s si de of th e va n,

whi le W il li s ap pr oa ch ed th e pa ss en ge r’s si de

. The y si m ul t an eo us ly br ok e ou t th e

win do ws ne ar th e fro nt o f t h e v a n

. W il li s was ab le to un lo ck an d op en th e

pa ss en ge r’s si de do or

. He reac he d i ns id e an d d rag ge d Hill ou t, who fell face -d own

to th e g ro un d a s Will is tac kl ed hi m

.

W ho ev er, un de r co lo r of an y la w,

. . . w i ll fu ll y su bjec ts an y pe rs on in

an y St at e

. . . to th e de pr iv at io n of an y rig ht s

. . . se cu red or pr ot ect ed by

th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. . . an d if bo di ly in jury res ul ts fro m th e act s co m m it te d

in vi o l a t i o n of th is se ct io n[ ,]

. . . sh al l be fin ed un de r th is ti tl e or im pr is on ed no t m or e th an ten y ears , or b ot h . . . .

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W

. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 2

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-W il li s he ld Hil l’s rig ht arm as he pl aced hi s kn ee on th e m id dl e of Hil l’s ba ck

.

To as si st W il li s, Ken ke l pr es se d he r kn ees on to Hil l’s rig ht sh ou ld er an d se cu red hi s rig ht fo rear m w i th he r ha nd s. Hil l’s le ft arm ha d be en pi nn ed un de rn eat h hi m , a nd

he fla il ed hi s le gs as Kli ng e pi nn ed do wn Hil l’s ba ck le ft si de an d tri ed to pu ll Hil l’s

le ft arm be hi nd hi s ba ck

. As Si m on so n cam e aro un d th e va n, sh e sa w t h e t h ree

of fic ers on to p of Hil l. Alt ho ug h Hil l was y el li ng an d st ru gg li ng , he was no t ki ck in g,

bi ti ng , or hi tt in g th e of

fic ers

. W il li s be li ev ed th at Hil l wou ld ha ve be en ha nd cu ffed

in a m at te r of

sec on ds

.

Bo on e al so res po nd ed to th e rep or t o f an acci de nt . As he dro ve to th e sc en e,

Bo on e h eard th at th e ve hi cl e ha d be gu n m ov in g an d th at th e o ffi cers ha d re qu es te d

a u th or iz at io n to br eak ou t a win do w. Bo on e arri ve d as Hil l was be in g t a c k l e d

. Acco rd in g t o B o on e, he sa w a pe rs on face -d own on th e gr ou nd

, tryin g to pu sh up

wit h hi s le ft arm , wit h of fic ers on hi s rig ht si d e t r yi n g to se cu re Hil l’s rig ht arm

. Bo on e ex it ed hi s pa tro l car an d ran to ward Hil l, sa y in g no th in g to Hil l or th e of fic ers

as he ran

. Bo on e te st ifi ed th at he th en “ us ed a si de ki ck an d tri ed to swe ep th at [le ft]

arm ou t fro m un de rn eat h [Hil l].” At th e ti m e, Bo on e weig he d al m os t 40 0 po un ds an d

was weari ng bo ot s.

Acco rd in g to th e ot he r of fic ers , ho wev er, Bo o n e ran to ward Hil l an d ki ck ed

hi m di rect ly in th e face

, cau si ng Hil l’s he ad to jerk ba ck in a “ whi pl as h m ot io n.” The

fo rce of Boo ne ’s ki ck cau se d Ken ke l to lo se he r ba la nc e. Hil l, who went li m p for a

m om en t aft er th e k i c k

, l a y f a ce-d own on th e gr ou nd

. He bl ed fro m hi s m ou th an d

fro m cu ts on hi s face

. Afte r Hil l ro ll ed fro m hi s st om ach to hi s ba ck

, he gu rg le d fro m

bl oo d po ol in g in th e ba ck of hi s th ro a t

. Th e of fic ers th en ro ll ed hi m on to hi s si de

“ [s ]o h e w ou ld n’t ch ok e on hi s own bl oo d.” Hil l sp it ou t two te et h. Hil l was

tra ns po rte d by am

bu la nc e to th e em erg en cy ro om , whe re th e t r eat in g ph y si ci an

de te rm in ed th at hi s in

juri es ha d be en cau se d by co ns id erab le bl un t tra um a “ co ns is te nt

wit h a ki ck .”

-3

-W il li s an d Kli ng e acco m pa ni ed Hil l in th e am

bu la nc e. B e f

o r e th ey le ft th e

sc en e, Bo on e o pe ne d t he am bu la nc e d oo r an d a sk ed W il li s “ if [ he ] was go od an d if
[h e] ne ed ed an y th in g.” W il li s an gr il y in st ru ct ed Bo on e to co m pl et e an arre st in ci de nt

rep or t, a fo rm of

fic ers us e to do cu m en t an y us e of fo rce. To W il li s, it was ob vi ou s

t h a t Bo on e “ ne ed ed to do cu m en t ho w Orv il le Hil l was m is si ng te et h,” ye t B o o n e

se em ed to be as ki ng whe th er he ne ed ed to co m pl et e an y pa pe rwo rk at al l. Bo on e al so

ap pr oa ch ed Si m on so n an d Ken ke l, te ll in g th em , “ [I] m ean t to kn oc k hi m ou t a li tt le

bi t,” or , “ I jus t tri ed to kn oc k hi m ou t.” Be fo re ret ur ni ng to th e st at io n, Bo on e to ld

an ot he r of

fic er th at he ha d to co m

pl et e an arre st in ci de nt rep or t be cau se he ha d ki ck ed

Hil l i n t he he ad

.

Bo on e’s th en -fi an cee wo r k e d a s a di sp at ch er at th e po li ce st at io n. W he n

Bo on e ret ur ne d to th e st at io n, he to ld he r “t h a t he ha d pu t hi s bo ot la ces acro ss

so m eb od y ’s face .” W he n he la te r ex pl ai ne d th e in ci de nt in gr eat er de ta il

, Bo on e to ld

he r th at “h e ha d ta ke n a te n- fo ot ru nn in g st art ” an d th at “ aft er he ha d ki ck ed th e

gu y [,]

. . . [Bo on e] sa w [Hil l] sp it ti ng tee th ou t an d th at bl oo d gu sh ed ev eryw he re.”

Bo on e’s arre st in ci de nt rep or t st at ed th at “ [t]he su sp ect was tryin g to pu sh up

an d I ki ck ed th e su sp ect in th e area of th e le ft s ho ul de r.” Bo on e d id no t re po rt t ha t

he ha d ki ck ed Hil l in t h e f a c e , no r di d he st at e th at he ha d cau se d Hil l’s in juri es , whi ch in cl ud ed two m is si ng te et h, a da m ag ed th ird to ot h, a br ok en no se , swo ll en li ps ,

an d a la cera ti on ab ov e th e ey e th at req ui red si x su tu res

. Afte r W il li s le arn ed th at 3

Bo on e’s rep or t was in co m pl et e an d in accu rat e, W il li s rep or te d to th e po li ce capt ai n

th at Bo on e ha d ki c k e d H i ll in th e face

. Si m on so n m ad e a si m il ar rep or t to he r

se rg ean t.

Hil l’s left fro nt in ci so r an d le ft se co nd in ci so r were br ok en at th ei r ro ot s and 3

were la te r su rg ic al ly rem ov ed

, al on g wit h t h e r i g h t f ro nt in ci so r, whi ch ha d be en da m ag ed by the ki ck

.

-4

-A g r an d jury ret ur ne d a two -co un t su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t in May 20 14

,

c h a r g i n g Bo on e wit h de pr iv in g Hil l of th e rig ht to be free fro m th e us e of

un reas on ab le fo rce by a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 24 2, an d

wit h kn owi ng ly fal si fy in g an arre st in ci de nt rep or t wit h th e in te nt to ob st ru ct jus ti ce,

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 15 19

. At th e tri al he ld la te r th at y ear, th e jury was un ab le

to reac h a ve rd ic t o n t he un reas on ab le -fo rce c ou nt , bu t it fou nd Bo on e no t gu il ty of

th e ob st ru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce co un t. The di s tri ct co ur t acce pt ed th e jury’ s ve rd ic t an d

de cl ared a m is tri al on th e un reas on ab le -fo rce co un t. A se co nd tri al was sc he du le d fo r

earl y 20 15

.

B e f or e th e se co nd tri al be ga n, th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed to ad m it ev id en c e o f

pr io r ba d act s to pr ov e in te nt

, kn owl ed ge , m ot iv e, an d ab se nc e of m is ta ke un de r Ru le

40 4( b) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e. Fo l l o w i n g a he ari ng , du rin g whi ch th e

go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce th at Bo on e ha d us ed un reas on ab le fo rce on an

arre st ee i n J an ua ry

20 09 an d t he reaf

te r tr ie d t o c on ceal hi s wro ng do in g, t he di st ric t

co ur t g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n, an d t he cas e p ro ceed ed to tri al

.

The sec on d t ria l b eg an in Mar ch 20 15

. Bo on e’s pr im ary de fen se was th at he

di d no t act wil lfu ll y , whi ch th e co ur t de fin ed as “ vo lu nt ari ly an d in te nt io na ll y , an d

wit h th e sp eci fic in te nt to do so m et hi ng th e la w fo rb id s – th at is

, wit h a ba d pu rp os e

to di so be y or di sr eg ard th e la w.” Bo on e te st ifi ed th at he “ di dn ’t m ean to st rik e [Hil l]

in th e he ad

, an d if [h e] di d, it was no t in te nt io na l, an d [h e] di dn ’t m ean to hu rt hi m .”

He ex pl ai ne d th at in it ia ll y he th ou gh t th at he “ ha d hi t [Hil l] so m ewh ere in th e arm or

t he up pe r sh ou ld er area ,” bu t he be ga n to ha ve do ub ts aft er “ th ey ro ll ed [Hil l] o v e r

an d

. . . th ere was so m e bl oo d on [Hil l’s] face .” Bo on e al so te st ifi ed th at whe n he sa w

th e ga sh on Hil l’s ey eb ro w, hi s “ fir st th ou gh t was , wow, th at lo ok s li ke m ay be

so m et hi ng li ke bo ot la ces or th e si de of y ou r bo ot m ay cau se , an d [Bo on e] kn ew th at
[h e] ha d st ru ck [Hil l] in th e up pe r sh ou ld er, an d [Bo on e] st art ed to won de r if m ay be
[h e ha d] hi t [Hi ll ] in th e h ead , to o.” Boo ne di d n ot ad m it th at he ha d ki ck ed Hil l in

th e fac e, te st ifyin g on cro ss -ex am in at io n th at he “ be li ev ed [he ] hi t h im in th e u pp er

-5

-sh ou ld er an d th at [h e] m ay ha ve hi t hi m in th e face ” an d th at “ [i]t’s ne ve r be en pr ov en

to m e.”

Offi cers Si m on so n, Kenk el

, W il li s, and Kli ng e te st ifi ed th at th ey were try in g

to ha nd cu ff Hil l whe n Bo on e arri ve d. Alt ho ug h th ey were ou tfi tt ed wit h a va rie ty of

weap on s, th ey us ed on ly ha nd s- on f o rce to co nt ro l Hil l, te st ifyin g th at no gr eat er

fo rce was ne ces sa ry to effe ct ua te th e ar r e st

. The of fic ers fu rth er te st ifi ed th at

Bo on e’s ki ck was a st rai gh t k i c k t o H i ll ’s face

, no t a swe ep ki ck to Hil l’s le ft

sh ou ld er. The da sh -cam vi de o fro m W il li s an d Kli ng e’s sq ua d car was pl ay ed fo r th e jury. It sh owe d W il li s’s ta ck le , t he of fic e r s ’ a t te m

pt to ha nd cu ff Hil l, an d Bo on e’s

ru nn in g k ic k.

The go ve rn m en t al so pr es en te d ev id en ce of Bo on e’s Ja nu ary 14

, 20 09

, us e of

fo rce ag ai ns t Dawn Doo le y

. Offi cer Ch ris Latc ha m t es ti fie d th at aft er Doo le y was

arre st ed fo r op erat in g a ve hi cl e whi le in to xi cat ed (OW I), Latc ha m an d Bo on e arri ve d

to tra ns po rt he r to th e po li ce st at io n. Latc ha m de sc rib ed Doo le y as “ be in g res is ti ve ”

an d st at ed th at sh e ha d ki ck ed hi m

. Doo le y sl ip pe d on th e ic e, an d ei th er Latc ha m or

Bo on e gr ab be d he r arm as sh e fel l. Th e o f f ic ers ev en tu al ly pl aced Doo le y in

Latc ha m ’s sq ua d car an d tra ns po rte d he r to th e po li ce st at io n, whe re sh e was de ta in ed

in an OW I ro om

. Aus ti n Hil l (n o rela ti ve of Orv il le Hil l) als o had be en arre st ed fo r

OW I th at ni gh t an d was be in g det ai ne d at the po li ce sta ti on , in an area de sc rib ed as

“ th e b ul lp en .”

Latc ha m te st ifi ed th at whi le Doo le y was se at ed in a ch ai r in th e OW I ro om , Bo on e gr ab be d he r arm “ [i]n an up ward m ot i o n , ” l i f ti ng it fo r ap pr ox im at el y te n

se co nd s, w h i l e D oo le y cri ed fo r he lp

. Aus ti n Hil l te st ifi ed th at aft er he he ard a

wom an y el li ng fo r he lp

, he lo ok ed th ro ug h a win do w in a do or a t t h e e nd of th e

bu ll pe n, wh ere h e co ul d s ee i nt o t he OW I ro om

. Aus ti n Hil l te st ifi ed th at he sa w a

wom an on th e flo or o f th e ro om an d Bo on e st an di ng ov er he r wit h “ hi s sh ou ld ers

th ru st in g ba ck .” Acco rd in g to Aus ti n Hil l, Bo on e “ as sa ul t[e d] he r wit h hi s ha nd s,”

-6

-as an ot he r of fic er st oo d in th e OW I ro om an d d id no th in g. The jury was sh own a

vi de o th at de pi ct ed Aus ti n Hil l walk in g to th e do or an d lo ok in g th ro ug h th e win do w,

as a wom an ’s vo ic e y el ls

, “ Help m e! ” The vi de o la te r sh ows Latc ha m es co rti ng

Doo le y th ro ug h a do or , pas t t he bu ll pe n wh ere Au st in Hil l was de ta in ed , and in to a

se co nd OW I ro om

. B o o n e e x i t s th e sa m e do or sh or tl y th erea fte r. Aus ti n Hil l

id en ti fie d Do ol ey

as t he wom an who was yell in g a nd Bo on e as th e o ffi cer wh o h ad

as sa ul te d h er.

The vi de o of t h e b u l lp en area al so cap tu red hu sh ed co nv ers at io ns be twee n

Latc ha m an d Bo on e, du rin g whi ch Bo on e st at ed th at he ne ed ed to writ e a us e-o f-fo rce

rep or t. Bo on e th en ch eck ed wit h an ot he r of fic er to se e if th e vi de o c am era in th e

bu ll pe n was reco rd in g. Afte r th e of fic er sa id th at he ha d no t tu rn ed it on , Bo on e to ld

Latc ha m what he in te nd ed to in cl ud e in th e rep or t: th at Doo le y ha d re si st ed arre st

, Latc ha m gr ab be d he r rig ht arm , Doo le y fel l, an d sh e in jur e d h er rig ht sh ou ld er.

Latc ha m res po nd ed

, “ Yeah .” At tri al

, ho wev er, L at ch am te st ifi ed th at he kn ew th at

Bo on e’s de sc rip ti on of th e fo rce us ed ag ai ns t Doo le y was in accu rat e or in co m pl et e.

Bo on e te st ifi ed th at he wro t e a n arre st in ci de nt rep or t, bu t th e Des Mo in es Po li ce Dep art m en t ha d no reco rd of an y su ch rep or t reg ard in g Bo on e’s us e of fo rce ag ai ns t

Doo le y

.

A vi de o of th e se co nd OW I ro om sh owe d Doo le y si tt in g in a ch ai r, crying

, an d
tryin g to wrap he r jack et aro un d he r le ft arm

. W he n as ke d at tri al if he kn ew why 4

Doo le y was crying

, Latc ha m rep li ed

, “ I be li ev e it ’s fro m be in g gra bb ed in th e ot he r

OW I ro om .” Near th e en d of th e vi de o, Doo l e y s t a t e s t h at an un id en ti fie d pe rs on

“ hu rt [h er] arm ,” th at sh e th ou gh t “ he di d br eak m y arm ,” an d th at “ of

fic ers br ok e it .”

The di st ric t co ur t o ve rru le d B oo ne ’s hea rs ay ob jecti on to th e v id eo

.

Alt ho ug h vi de o cam eras were in st al le d in bot h O W I ro om s, th ere was no vi de o 4

reco rd in g o f th e fi rs t OWI roo m

.

-7

-Befo re th e cas e was su bm it te d to th e jury, th e di st ric t co ur t is su ed a li m it in g

in st ru ct io n, ex pl ai ni ng th at th e jury co ul d co ns id er th e ev id en ce of th e Doo le y

i n ci de nt to “ he lp y ou de ci de [Bo on e’s] in te nt

, kn owl ed ge , m ot iv e, or ab s e n c e o f

m is ta ke ,” bu t no t as ev id en ce th at Bo on e co m m it te d th e cri m e ch arg ed in th e in st an t

cas e. Fo ll owi ng th e en try of th e gu il ty ve rd ic t, Bo on e was se nt en ced to 63 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t.

II. Dis cu ss io n

Bo on e arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng ev id en ce of hi s us e of

fo rce ag ai ns t Doo le y

. W e rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci s io n

to ad m it pr io r ba d act ev id en ce, an d we “ rev ers e on ly whe n su ch ev id en ce cl earl y ha d

no be ari ng on th e cas e an d was in tro du ced so le ly to pr ov e th e de fen da nt ’s pr op en si ty

to co m m it cri m in al act s.” Uni te d St at es v. Y i e l d i n g , 65 7 F.3 d 68 8, 70 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h ev id en ce of a pr io r

ba d act i s n ot ad m is si bl e to sh ow a d efen da nt ’s pro pe ns it y to co m m it cri m in al act s,

it is ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 40 4( b) to sh ow “ m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt

, pr ep arat io n, pl an , kn owl ed ge , id en ti ty, ab se nc e of m is ta ke

, or la ck of acci de nt .” Fed

. R. Evi d.

40 4( b)

. Evi de nc e of a pr i o r b a d a c t “i s ad m is si bl e if (1 ) it is rel ev an t to a m at eri al

is su e, (2 ) it is si m il ar in ki nd an d no t ov erl y rem ot e in ti m e to th e ch arg ed of fen se , (3 )

it is su pp o r t e d b y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, an d (4 ) it s po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e do es no t

su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh it s pr ob at iv e va lu e.” Uni te d St at es v. Ell is

, 81 7 F.3 d 57 0, 57 9
(8 th Cir . 20 16 ).

Evi de nc e of B o o n e ’s us e of un reas on ab le fo rce ag ai ns t Doo le y was rel ev an t

to pr ov e th at Bo on e act ed wil lfu ll y whe n he de pr iv ed Hil l of hi s rig ht to be free fro m

un reas on ab le fo rce. To pr ov e wil lfu ln es s, th e go ve rn m en t was req ui red to sh ow th at

Bo on e act ed wit h s pe ci fic in te nt to de pr iv e Hil l o f hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. See 18

U.S.C. § 2 4 2 ; U ni te d St at es v. Ja ck so n, 23 5 F.2 d 92 5, 92 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 56 ) (ci ti ng

Scre ws v. Uni te d St at es , 32 5 U.S. 91

, 10 3( 19 45 )). By te st ifyin g th at he di d no t in te nd

-8

-to hu rt Hil l or ki ck hi m in th e he ad

, bu t was in st ead tryin g to as si st hi s fel lo w of fic ers

in se cu rin g Hil l, Bo on e pl aced hi s st at e of m in d sq ua rel y a t i s s u e an d ren de red

ev id en ce of hi s pr io r us e of un reas on ab le fo rce pr ob at iv e of hi s in te nt

, kn o w l ed ge ,

m ot iv e, an d ab se nc e of m is ta ke in hi s us e of fo rce ag ai ns t Hil l. See Uni te d St at es v.

Bru gm an , 36 4 F.3 d 61 3, 62 0- 21 (5 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (h ol di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng e v i d e nc e of a bo rd er pa tro l ag en t’s pr io r us e of

ex ces si ve for ce t o p ro ve th e ag en t’s i nt en t i n t he ch arg ed off en se ).

Bo on e arg ue s t h a t t he Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce sh ou ld no t ha ve be en ad m it te d

be cau se hi s all eg ed us e of un reas on ab le fo rce ag ai ns t Doo le y was ne it he r si m il ar in

ki nd no r cl os e in ti m e to th e us e of fo rce ag ai ns t Hil l. B o o n e fo cu se s on th e

di ffer en ces in th e m an ne r an d de g r e e o f f o r ce us ed an d in th e co nt ex ts of th e two

in c i d e n t s

. W ha te ve r th es e di ffer en ces , we co nc lu de th at th ey di d no t ren de r th e

Doo le y in ci de nt ev id en ce in ad m is si bl e, fo r whe n ad m it te d to sh ow in te nt

, “ th e pr io r

act s ne ed no t be du pl ic at es .” Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 47 0 F.3 d 12 71

, 12 75 (8 th Ci r.

20 06 ). In bo th in ci de nt s, Bo on e us ed m or e fo rce th a n n e c e s s a ry to su bd ue an

in di vi du al who was act in g erra ti cal ly or di sr up ti ve ly. He th en co m pl et ed rep or ts th at

f a i l e d t o accu rat el y do cu m en t hi s us e of fo rce. W e th us co nc lu de th at th e

ci rcu m st an ces of th e p r i o r a c t an d of th e ch arg ed cri m e were su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar to

su pp or t an in fere nc e o f cri m in al in te nt

.

As fo r Bo on e’s arg um en t th at th e rem ot en es s of hi s 20 09 us e of fo rce ag ai ns t

Doo le y ren de red it in ad m is si bl e, “ [t]he re is no ab so lu te ru le ab ou t rem ot en es s in ti m e,

an d we ap pl y a reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd ba se d on th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces of each

cas e.” Yiel di ng , 65 7 F.3 d at 70 2; se e al so W al ke r, 47 0 F.3 d at 12 75 (“ [T]here is no

sp eci fic n u mb e r of y ears be y on d whi ch pr io r ba d act s are no lo ng er rel ev an t to th e

is su e of in te nt .” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v

. S h o ffn er, 71 F.3 d 14 29

, 14 32 (8 th Ci r.

19 95 )). In li gh t of th ei r ab ov e-d es cri be d si m il ari ti es , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e ev id en ce reg ard in g th e Doo le y

in ci de nt no twi th st an di ng th e fo ur -y ear la ps e of ti m e be twee n it an d th e Hil l in ci de nt

.

-9

-Bo on e ne xt arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t pres en t su ffi ci en t evi de nc e to

es ta bl is h t ha t h e h ad us ed un reas on ab le for ce ag ai ns t Do ol ey or t ha t he ha d tri ed to

co nc eal an y us e of fo rce. “ In th e Ru le 40 4( b) co nt ex t, si m il ar act ev id en ce is rel ev an t

on ly if th e jury can reas on ab ly co nc lu de th at th e act oc cu rred an d th at th e de fen da nt

was th e act or .” U n i te d St at es v. Arm st ro ng , 78 2 F.3 d 10 28

, 10 34 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 )
(q uo ti ng Hud d le st on v. Uni te d St at es , 4 85 U.S. 6 81 , 6 89 (1 98 8) ). W he n rel ev an ce

is co nd it io ne d on whe th er a fact ex is ts

, th e go ve rn m en t mu s t in tro du ce pr oo f

“s u f f ic ie nt to su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e fact do es ex is t.” Id . ( qu ot in g Fed . R . E v i d

. 10 4( b) ). W he n th e di st ric t co ur t de ci de s whe th er th e pr oo f is su ffi ci en t, it “ do es no t
weig h th e ev id en ce or m ak e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns bu t in st ead ‘sim pl y ex am in es

al l th e ev id en ce in th e cas e an d d e c i d e s w h et he r th e jury co ul d reas on ab ly fin d th e

co nd it io na l fa ct [—h ere, wh et he r Bo on e u se d un reas on ab le fo rce on Doo le y —]by a

pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce.’” Id. (q uo ti ng Hud dl es to n, 4 85 U.S. at 6 90 ).

Bo on e arg ue s t ha t Au st in Hil l was no t a c red ib le wit ne ss . Agai n, th e d is tri ct

co ur t do es no t m ak e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns , an d in li gh t of Aus t i n H i l l ’s an d

Offi cer Latc ha m ’s te st im on y th at a pe rs on co ul d vi e w t h e OW I ro om fro m th e

win do w in th e bu ll pe n do or , th e di s t r i c t co ur t pr op erl y al lo wed th e jury to de ci de

whe th er Au st in Hil l h ad wit ne ss ed an y us e o f fo rce b y

Bo on e ag ai ns t Do ol ey

.

Bo on e al so arg ue s th at th ere was no ev id en ce t h a t t h e fo rce he us ed was

un reas on ab le

. W e di sa gr ee, fo r a jury co ul d cred it Aus ti n Hil l’s te st im on y th at Bo on e

was “ as sa ul ti ng [Do ol ey ] wit h hi s ha nd s” as sh e la y on th e flo or , or be li ev e Latc ha m ’s

te st im on y th at Do o l e y was se at ed whe n Bo on e gr ab be d he r arm an d th at sh e la te r

cri ed be cau se Bo on e ha d in jure d he r. Mo reo ve r, a jury co ul d reas on ab ly in te rp ret th e

whi sp ered co nv ers at io n be twee n Bo on e a n d La t ch am as an at te m pt to co nc eal

Bo on e’s us e o f un reas on ab le for ce o n Do ol ey , fai r in fere nc e b ei ng th at Doo le y ha d

do ne no th in g i n t he OW I ro om to ne ces si ta te Bo on e’s us e o f fo rce a ga in st he r.

-1 0-Fi na ll y , Bo on e arg ue s th at th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of th e Doo le y ev id en ce was

su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by t he da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e. See Fed . R. Ev id . 4 03 ;

Ell is

, 81 7 F.3d at 57 9. As se t fo rth ab ov e, ho wev er, th e ev id en ce of Bo on e’s us e of

un reas on ab le fo rce a g a in st Doo le y an d hi s at te m pt to co nc eal th at us e of fo rce ha d

si gn ifi can t pr ob at iv e va lu e on whe th er Bo on e ha d act ed wil lfu ll y whe n he ki ck ed Hil l

in th e f ace. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s li m it in g in st ru ct io n ad eq ua te ly

m in im iz ed th e da ng er of an y un fai r pr ejud ic e th at m ay ha ve ot he rwis e ari se n an d th at

t h e d is tri ct co ur t th us di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e Ru le 40 4 ( b )

ev id en ce.

Bo on e ne xt arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng th e

vi de o of th e se co nd OW I ro om , whi c h rev eal ed Doo le y as crying

, co m pl ai ni ng of

pa in

, an d tryin g to wrap he r jack et aro un d he r le ft arm

. Bo on e co nt en ds th at th e

fo ll owi ng st at em en ts by Doo le y were in ad m is si bl e h e a r s ay : “ He hu rt m y arm ,” “ I

th in k he di d br eak m

y arm ,” an d “ of

fic ers br ok e it .” Eve n as su m in g th at th es e

st at em en ts were no t ad m is si bl e as ex ci te d ut te ran ces or as pr es en t se ns e im pr es si on s,

se e Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 3( 1) -(2 ), an y erro r in ad m it ti ng th e st at em en ts was ha rm le ss , se e

Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (a), in li gh t of bo th th e vi de o an d th e te st im on ia l ev id en ce of th e

fo rce th at Bo on e ha d us ed ag ai ns t Hil l. See Uni te d St at es v. Mar ro wbo ne , 21 1 F.3 d

4 5 2

, 45 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ An erro ne ou s ev id en ti ary ru li ng do es no t [a]ffect a

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht an d is ha rm le s s e rro r if, aft er rev ie win g th e en ti re reco rd

, we

de te rm in e th at th e er r o r d i d no t in flu en ce or ha d on ly a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e

ve rd ic t.”)

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 1-