UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ELLIOTT SIMMONS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the government's improper introduction of a prejudicial statement, despite its exclusion, was not harmless error and warranted reversal.
The defendant was convicted of robbery. During the trial, the government attempted to introduce a belligerent statement made by the defendant, but it …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State Of Mind Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Defendant and another were tried and convicted under a charge of taking personal property from another by force, violence, and intimidation on a federal reservation. 18 U.S.C. § 2111. The evidence against defendant was not strong.
In its case-in-chief, the government sought to prove a belligerent statement, allegedly made by defendant shortly before the offense, as bearing upon defendant’s state of mind. The proof was excluded. Nonetheless, on cross-examination of the co-defendant, government counsel quoted the excluded statement and asked if the defendant had made it. Defendant’s objection was sustained, and the jury was instructed to disregard the question.
The excluded statement thus brought to the attention of the jury was highly prejudicial to the defendant. In view of the weakness of the government’s case we cannot say that government counsel’s error was rendered harmless by the court’s admonition and that it did not affect the verdict.
The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.