United States v. Christy
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15800
8th Cir.2011Background
- Christy was convicted of unlawful possession of firearms as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- District court sentenced Christy to 204 months’ imprisonment.
- Prosecution: Christy allegedly possessed firearms in an Ottumwa, Iowa alley on July 22, 2009, with co‑conspirator Wulff; Babcock testified to a sale attempt and possession of firearms.
- Defense: Christy offered an alibi defense with two housemates who testified he was at bars that evening.
- District court refused to submit Christy’s alibi instruction; final instructions did not include a specific alibi instruction.
- Christy challenges on appeal the district court’s failure to give his proposed alibi instruction; standard of review is abuse of discretion when a timely request is made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by not giving alibi instruction | Christy: alibi instruction supported by evidence and required | Christy: proposed alibi instruction unnecessary given standard instructions | No abuse of discretion; instruction adds little and overall instructions adequately addressed defense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Serrano-Lopez, 366 F.3d 628 (8th Cir.2004) (entitlement to a theory-of-defense instruction when supported by evidence)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (defendant entitled to instruction on recognized defenses with evidence for reasonable jury finding)
- Apel v. United States, 247 F.2d 277 (8th Cir.1957) (instruction must adequately present defense theory)
- Brown v. United States, 478 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.2007) (no error where instructions as a whole address defense)
- United States v. Burse, 531 F.2d 1151 (2d Cir.1976) (specific alibi instruction may be needed to keep burden with government)
- United States v. Webster, 769 F.2d 487 (8th Cir.1985) (harmless error possibility when alibi instruction denied)
- United States v. Kent, 531 F.3d 642 (8th Cir.2008) (addressing instruction scope and avoidance of plain error)
- Barham v. United States, 595 F.2d 231 (5th Cir.1979) (instructions must be precise to test defense)
- United States v. Ali, 63 F.3d 710 (8th Cir.1995) (caution on model jury instructions)
- United States v. Casperson, 773 F.2d 216 (8th Cir.1985) (theory-of-defense instruction considerations)