Court Opinion

ID: 9395658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 16:00:55.694257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:10.395763
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-1856
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

                                   Donald Bramlett

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                        ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: January 11, 2023
                                Filed: May 18, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
                             ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Donald Bramlett was convicted by a jury of failing to register as a sex offender
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
He appeals, arguing that the district court1 erred by failing to give his preferred jury
instruction on “knowledge.” We affirm.

       The district court read each proposed jury instruction during the jury
instruction conference and solicited objections from both parties. Defense counsel
objected to Jury Instruction Number 7, which listed the elements of failure to register
as a sex offender. The court acknowledged that Bramlett had requested that the
instruction state that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant was not entrapped, but explained that it was Bramlett’s burden to prove the
defense of entrapment by estoppel by a preponderance of the evidence. See United
States v. Benning, 248 F.3d 772, 775 (8th Cir. 2001) (defendant has burden of proof).
When defense counsel expressed concern that “the jury should know what knowledge
means,” the court read Jury Instruction Number 11 on knowledge, to which defense
counsel responded, “Okay.” When asked by the court if defense counsel was “fine
with this instruction,” counsel stated that he was “still going to object.”

       Any confusion regarding which instruction defense counsel objected to was
cleared up shortly thereafter, when the district court continued through the jury
instructions and reread Instruction Number 11 on knowledge. Defense counsel
responded, “Good for the defense,” with no further comment. “When a party
expressly agrees to an instruction, the doctrine of invited error applies, and any
objection to the instruction is waived.” United States v. Davis, 826 F.3d 1078, 1082
(8th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, “we do not review the objection at all.” United States
v. Spencer, 998 F.3d 813, 818 (8th Cir. 2021).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

      1
      The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.

                                          -2-