United States v. Andre LaFontaine, III
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2236
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Andre LaFontaine, disgruntled after state and federal litigation losses, left a threatening voicemail for a DOJ/FBI employee in July 2015 containing racial epithets and threats to cut judges' throats; he had earlier made a similar 2013 call to a federal court employee.
- Investigators interviewed LaFontaine; he admitted wanting the 2015 message to “spark action” and reportedly admitted intent to threaten; agents found a pocketknife, recordings, and a letter suggesting possible violence.
- LaFontaine was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce; he was convicted by a jury.
- Before trial the court admitted evidence of the 2013 call under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent/lack of mistake; LaFontaine was permitted to present the content of the prior statement and received a limiting instruction.
- At sentencing the court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release with special conditions including GPS monitoring, a total alcohol ban, substance-abuse treatment, mental-health treatment, no-contact order, residency in a reentry facility, and random searches.
Issues
| Issue | LaFontaine's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (presumption of innocence, comment on not testifying, opinion on guilt, attack on counsel) | Closing improperly undermined presumption, implied silence, vouched for guilt, and insulted counsel; reversible error | Remarks were within permissible response to defense, mirrored jury instructions, did not call attention to silence, and were permissible advocacy | No plain error; objections not preserved and remarks were not improper or prejudicial |
| Admissibility of prior 2013 threatening statement under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) | Prior statement was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial | Prior statement probative of intent/lack of mistake, similar in kind, recent, and supported by witness testimony | Admission was within district court’s discretion under 404(b); probative value not substantially outweighed prejudice |
| GPS monitoring as supervised-release condition | GPS monitoring is overbroad and not narrowly tailored; violates liberty interests | Condition reasonably related to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors given threats, escalation, and safety risk; tailored to monitor compliance with no-contact order | No abuse of discretion; GPS monitoring was reasonable and narrowly tailored |
| Total alcohol ban and substance-abuse treatment as conditions | Court imposed conditions without adequate explanation; plain error | Defendant was informed pre-sentencing and did not object at sentencing; conditions were part of planned supervision | Waived on appeal because LaFontaine knowingly and voluntarily agreed at sentencing; unreviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 795 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2015) (plain-error standard for reviewing unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct)
- United States v. Alaboudi, 786 F.3d 1136 (8th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review explained)
- United States v. Contreras, 816 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2016) (Rule 404(b) four-part test and deference to district court)
- United States v. Williams, 796 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2015) (404(b) inclusionary approach and standards)
- United States v. Forde, 664 F.3d 1219 (8th Cir. 2012) (special conditions of supervised release must relate to § 3553(a) and be no more restrictive than necessary)
- United States v. Hobbs, 710 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Campbell, 764 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2014) (knowing waiver of rights at sentencing precludes appellate review)
- United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for challenges to sentencing conditions)