Opinion ID: 701341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gil Hansen's testimony

Text: 18 Shedlock's last evidentiary objection involves the expert testimony of Gil Hansen, a Law Enforcement Academy instructor. Hansen testified that he trains police officers to maintain a reactionary gap between them and a suspect in an effort to safeguard the officers. If a suspect invades this gap, Hansen trains the officers to take all protective action, including the use of force, necessary to maintain the gap. The district court admitted Hansen's testimony to aid the jury regarding Palmer's state of mind and whether or not Shedlock acted forcibly. 19 As a general rule, expert testimony is admissible if it is relevant, helpful to the jury, and will not confuse the jury. See Fed.R.Evid. 702. Expert testimony is helpful to a jury if it concerns matters beyond the knowledge of average individuals; however, it cannot supplant the jury's role in evaluating the evidence. United States v. French, 12 F.3d 114, 116 (8th Cir.1993). 20 Shedlock contends that Hansen's testimony was not relevant to any material issue in the case because Hansen testified about excessive force, an issue not before the jury. It is true that whether or not Deputy Palmer used excessive force is not directly relevant to whether or not Shedlock assaulted or otherwise interfered with Deputy Palmer. Nonetheless, Shedlock interjected the excessive force issue into the case as part of his defense by questioning the propriety of Deputy Palmer's actions in hitting him. For example, Shedlock's counsel asked Deputy Palmer on cross-examination whether or not he always pushed people down when those people came within approximately eighteen inches of Deputy Palmer. As such, Hansen's testimony had sufficient relevance to this case. 21 Shedlock also challenges the appropriateness of Hansen's reactionary gap testimony. This testimony helped the jury consider what might have gone through a reasonable officer's mind when an aggressive person confronts him or her. To sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111, the jury must find that Shedlock's actions were forcibly committed. See United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345, 1348 (8th Cir.1993) (defining force as used in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 to mean proof of actual physical contact, or ... proof of such a threat or display of physical aggression toward the officer as to inspire fear of pain, bodily harm, or death) (internal quotation omitted). Because this evaluation of force necessarily requires an inquiry into a what a reasonable officer would do or think in a particular situation, expert testimony about a reasonable police officer's state of mind is proper. 22 Shedlock's other contentions are without merit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Hansen's testimony.