Bady v. Murphy-Kjos, 628 F.3d 1000

On February 24, 2006, Bady, a diabetic, appeared to have a heart attack at a friend's home; firefighters attempted to help and described him as combative.
The firefighters called Minneapolis Police for help; Sergeant Peter and Officer Stanton attempted to cuff Bady as he resisted arrest.
The confrontation escalated when Officer Stanton warned Bady was grabbing his gun; Officers Johnson and Murphy-Kjos deployed tasers; Bady was tased at least three times and then handcuffed.
Bady filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging excessive force during the seizure at the friend’s home.
At trial, the district court admitted a paramedic's statement that Bady had assaulted a firefighter, and the jury received an excessive-force instruction including Graham’s rapidly evolving circumstances language; the jury returned a verdict for the officers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of the paramedic statement	Bady argues the paramedic's statement was inadmissible hearsay.	Officers contend the statement is admissible to show totality of the circumstances, not for truth.	Statement not hearsay; admissible to show circumstances.
Excessive force jury instruction	Bady claims the instruction favored officers and should not have used Graham language.	Officers contend the instruction was proper and appropriately tailored to the evidence.	No plain-error reversal; instruction upheld as proper.

Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
U.S. Salt, Inc. v. Broken Arrow, Inc., 563 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2009) (wide discretion in admitting evidence; clear abuse required)
Barrett v. Acevedo, 169 F.3d 1155 (8th Cir. 1999) (hearsay exception for statements offered to show effect on recipient)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (rapidly evolving circumstances in excessive force analysis)
United States v. Collier, 527 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2008) (preservation of evidentiary objections; need not renew objections in some contexts)
Niemiec v. Union Pac. R.R., 449 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review in civil cases; standard is miscarriage of justice)
Horstmyer v. Black & Decker, Inc., 151 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 1998) (plain error standard and requirement of miscarriage of justice)
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Beelman River Terminals, Inc., 254 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard for evaluating jury instructions)
White v. Honeywell, Inc., 141 F.3d 1270 (8th Cir. 1998) (instructional error review; broad district court discretion)
Ernster v. Luxco, Inc., 596 F.3d 1000 (8th Cir. 2010) (instructional error and evidentiary review standards)
Norton, 846 F.2d 521 (8th Cir. 1988) (models of jury instructions and non-binding status of model instructions)