Court Opinion

ID: 999388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:25:11.667343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:11.944281
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 98-4544

JOSEPH LAMPKIN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-84)

Submitted: August 5, 1999

Decided: August 12, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BRODNAX & JENKINS, Alexandria, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, James
G. Duncan, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Lampkin appeals his conviction for assault of a correctional
officer. Lampkin asserts that the district court abused its discretion by
limiting the impeachment of defense witness Robert Green. Finding
no reversible error, we affirm.

Green testified that, although he was in the vicinity, he did not see
the incident for which Lampkin was convicted. At trial, the court pre-
vented defense counsel from questioning Green regarding a prior con-
versation between Green and counsel and from introducing the
testimony of Ronald Wynn. According to defense counsel, Green had
previously informed counsel that Lampkin was only defending him-
self, and Wynn would likewise testify that Green told him that Lamp-
kin was acting in self-defense.

We find that the district court did not err. Because Green testified
that he did not remember the incident, his testimony was not damag-
ing to Lampkin. Therefore, while Lampkin accurately asserts that the
proffered hearsay testimony by Green and Wynn would have been
admissible only for impeachment purposes, impeachment of Green
would not have aided Lampkin. See United States v. Ince, 21 F.3d
576, 581 (4th Cir. 1994) (where testimony does not affirmatively
damage case, impeachment evidence has no probative value). Further,
the content of the alleged prior inconsistent statements directly sup-
ported Lampkin's testimony that he was merely defending himself.
Thus, there was a substantial likelihood that the jury would have had
difficulty confining use of the hearsay evidence to impeachment. See
id. at 580-81. Finally, because Green's testimony did not harm Lamp-
kin's case, any error in preventing impeachment of Green was harm-
less. See United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1078 (4th Cir.
1988) (error in the district court's evidentiary rulings is subject to the
harmless error test).

                     2
Accordingly, we affirm Lampkin's conviction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3