Jerrell Johnson v. Stephen Rankin, 547 F. App'x 263

Johnson, administrator of Kirill Denyakin’s estate, sued Rankin for excessive force under §1983 and state-law battery and gross negligence; jury verdict for Rankin in all counts; appeal concerns evidentiary rulings.
Rankin responded to a Priority One burglary call; Denyakin banged on a door, Rankin drew his weapon, ordered surrender, and Denyakin allegedly charged; Rankin fired 11 times, killing Denyakin; no weapon found on Denyakin after search.
Evidence issues at trial included: (a) admission of prior-bad-act evidence about Denyakin’s alcoholism and a prior police encounter; (b) exclusion of two Facebook postings by Rankin; (c) exclusion of an autopsy photograph.
Trial occurred Feb. 28, 2012; Johnson challenges three district-court evidentiary determinations; the district court admitted the prior-bad-act evidence, excluded the Facebook postings from the liability phase, and excluded the autopsy photograph.
Fourth Circuit reviews admissibility under Rule 404(b) for abuse of discretion, applying a four-part test (relevance, necessity, reliability, prejudice).
This opinion affirms the district court’s evidentiary rulings, upholding the Rule 404(b) admission, and the exclusion of Facebook postings and the autopsy photograph.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior bad act evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b).	Denyakin’s alcoholism and February 2011 encounter show capacity to charge while intoxicated and awareness of being shot.	Evidence is improper character evidence and prejudicial; should be excluded.	Admissible under Rule 404(b); probative of essential issues and not unduly prejudicial.
Whether Rankin’s Facebook postings were admissible in the liability phase.	Postings show motive/intent and credibility relevant to punitive damages and liability.	Postings are inflammatory and irrelevant to liability under Graham; prejudicial.	Excluded from liability phase; limited relevance and substantial prejudice justify Rule 403 exclusion.
Whether the autopsy photograph was admissible.	Photograph could help show hand position and contradict Denyakin’s hand being in his pants.	Highly prejudicial; limited probative value; court-balanced under Rule 403.	Excluded; district court did not abuse discretion given high prejudicial effect.

Graham v. O'Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (officer motive not required for excessive-force liability; evidence may affect credibility)
Beec h Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988) (plain-error standard for exclusion issues; preserve objections)
United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2011) (four-part Rule 404(b) test for prior-act evidence)
United States v. Lewis, 780 F.2d 1140 (4th Cir. 1986) (guides balancing of probative value and prejudice under Rule 403)
Philip Morris, Inc. v. Emerson, 368 S.E.2d 268 (Va. 1988) (Virginia contributory-negligence involves knowledge of danger)
Frazier v. City of Norfolk, 362 S.E.2d 688 (Va. 1987) (gross negligence standard in Virginia law)
Sturman v. Johnson, 163 S.E.2d 170 (Va. 1968) (objective standard governs negligence in Virginia)
Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 520 S.E.2d 164 (Va. 1999) (Virginia negligence standards; admissibility context)
Monk v. Hess, 191 S.E.2d 229 (Va. 1972) (assumption of risk requires awareness of risk)
Leslie v. Nitz, 184 S.E.2d 755 (Va. 1971) (subjective knowledge required for risk-bearing)
Arndt v. Russillo, 343 S.E.2d 84 (Va. 1986) (subjective knowledge component in claims)
Koffman v. Garnett, 574 S.E.2d 258 (Va. 2003) (battery definition under Virginia law)