United States v. Brandon Tyerman
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25350
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Tyerman was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and of possession of a stolen firearm.
- ATF mistakenly destroyed the firearm after final disposition; issue of spoliation arose.
- Before trial, Tyerman sought to exclude prior acts; court admitted acts as intrinsic evidence and under 404(b).
- The district court applied a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement based on an attempted escape plan revealed by a co‑inmate.
- Tyerman challenges suppression ruling, evidentiary rulings, jury instruction on spoliation, trial testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and sentencing enhancement.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirms the convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of the firearm. | Tyerman argues privilege violation and rights infringement. | Government waived privilege implicitly; no intrusion occurred. | No Sixth Amendment violation; implicit waiver established. |
| Admission of prior-acts evidence. | Acts are admissible as intrinsic or 404(b) to show motive/intent. | Evidence is prejudicial and speculative. | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible under intrinsic purpose or 404(b). |
| Spoliation evidence and instructions. | Destruction of the firearm requires dismissal or spoliation instruction. | No bad faith; spoliation instruction unwarranted. | Destruction not in bad faith; denial of spoliation instruction affirmed; no prejudice shown. |
| Sufficiency of evidence. | Evidence insufficient to prove felon in possession and stolen firearm. | Evidence sufficient; fingerprints and serial number support possession and theft. | Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions. |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement. | No substantial step toward escape; enhancement improper. | Handcuff-keys creation and plan constitute substantial step. | Two-level obstruction enhancement properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Singer, 785 F.2d 228 (8th Cir. 1986) (balancing government intrusion on privilege)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
- United States v. Anderson, 688 F.3d 339 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for suppression findings on appeal)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (due process and destruction of evidence)
- United States v. Webster, 625 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 2010) (destruction of evidence; standard for dismissal)
- United States v. Aldridge, 664 F.3d 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (404(b) applicability and balancing probative value vs prejudice)
- United States v. Street, 548 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Davis, 406 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2005) (ineffective-assistance claims; mixed questions of law and fact)
- United States v. McBane, 433 F.3d 344 (3d Cir. 2005) (discussion of common-law larceny vs statutory stolen)