United States v. Colin Boone, 828 F.3d 705

In Feb 2013 Des Moines officers responded to a one-car crash; Orville Hill was subdued after attempting to drive away and was being held face-down by multiple officers when Officer Colin Boone ran up and kicked him. Hill sustained significant facial injuries (including lost teeth) consistent with a kick.
Boone gave inconsistent statements and wrote an arrest report that understated the force used; other officers reported Boone had kicked Hill in the face. Boone also admitted to colleagues and his then-fiancée that he kicked Hill.
A grand jury charged Boone under 18 U.S.C. § 242 (willful deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights) and § 1519 (false report). The jury deadlocked on the § 242 count at the first trial and acquitted on the § 1519 count; after a second trial Boone was convicted under § 242 and sentenced to 63 months.
Before retrial the government moved to admit evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) of a prior 2009 incident in which Boone allegedly used unreasonable force on Dawn Dooley and then attempted to conceal it; the district court admitted that evidence with a limiting instruction.
At trial the government presented eyewitness testimony, squad dash-cam video, and the 2009 incident video showing Dooley crying and statements like “He hurt my arm.” The court overruled hearsay objections to the Dooley-room video statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-bad-act evidence under Rule 404(b)	Dooley incident probative of Boone's intent, knowledge, motive, absence of mistake	Admission was improper: incidents not similar enough and too remote in time	Affirmed — 404(b) evidence admissible: relevant to willfulness, sufficiently similar, 4-year gap not dispositive
Sufficiency of evidence that Boone committed the Dooley act	Witnesses and video supported that Boone used improper force and tried to conceal it	Testimony (Austin Hill) unreliable; insufficient proof force was unreasonable	Affirmed — enough evidence for jury to reasonably find Boone acted against Dooley and attempted concealment (Rule 104(b)/Huddleston standard)
Rule 403 prejudice from prior-act evidence	Probative value on intent outweighed prejudice; limiting instruction mitigated risk	Prior-act evidence was unfairly prejudicial, inflaming jury against Boone	Affirmed — probative value substantial; limiting instruction adequate to reduce unfair prejudice
Admissibility of Dooley’s videotaped statements (alleged hearsay)	Even if hearsay, any error in admitting those statements was harmless given other evidence	Statements were inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial	Affirmed — if admission was error it was harmless under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) and did not influence verdict

United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing admission of prior bad-act evidence)
United States v. Ellis, 817 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2016) (Rule 404(b) admissibility framework)
United States v. Walker, 470 F.3d 1271 (8th Cir. 2006) (prior acts need not be duplicates when used to show intent)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (Rule 104(b) standard: jury may reasonably conclude conditional fact)
United States v. Armstrong, 782 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 2015) (burden for proof in Rule 404(b) conditional relevance)
United States v. Brugman, 364 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2004) (prior excessive-force evidence admissible to prove intent)
United States v. Marrowbone, 211 F.3d 452 (8th Cir. 2000) (harmless-error review for evidentiary mistakes)
United States v. Jackson, 235 F.2d 925 (8th Cir. 1956) (willfulness requirement under § 242; citing Screws)
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (defining willfulness for § 242 prosecutions)