United States v. Donald Boman
810 F.3d 534
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- On November 2, 2013, a street altercation occurred; witnesses heard a pop and Marcus Brown told a 911 dispatcher that "Donnie" shot at him. Police arrested Donald Boman at a nearby residence; officers found a gun and ammunition in the shared bedroom.
- Boman was indicted and convicted by a jury for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); district court sentenced him to 262 months' imprisonment.
- At trial the court excluded (a) evidence of Brown’s prior convictions proffered as reverse Rule 404(b) and (b) certain proffered testimony about Brown’s alleged prior abuse of a witness and motive, under Rule 403.
- The district court admitted the 911 recording as an excited utterance under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2).
- At sentencing the court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement based on three prior violent-felony convictions and applied a four-level weapon enhancement under USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); Boman challenged both classifications on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boman) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of reverse Rule 404(b) evidence (Brown’s priors) | Brown’s priors were sufficiently recent and probative to show Brown, not Boman, had firearm propensity | Priors were remote and unduly prejudicial; district court properly excluded under 404(b)/403 | Affirmed: Brown’s 1993 conviction was too remote; 2012 burglary was not similar in kind — exclusion not abuse of discretion |
| Exclusion of proffered testimony on Brown’s motive/bias (Rule 403) | Testimony about Brown’s alleged abuse of witness and motive to fabricate was relevant and not prejudicial | Testimony would litigate collateral domestic-abuse matters and waste time; probative value substantially outweighed | Affirmed: District court did not abuse discretion excluding collateral, confusing evidence under Rule 403 |
| Admission of 911 call (excited utterance, Rule 803(2)) | Government failed to establish a startling event/foundation and connection to statements; lacked indicia of reliability | Call was made immediately after a gunshot; declarant was under stress and statements described the event | Affirmed: Trial court properly admitted the 911 call as an excited utterance |
| ACCA classification — whether 1992 § 924(c) convictions count as separate predicate violent felonies | 1992 convictions were not meaningfully distinct occasions or were not violent felonies | The convictions involved distinct victims, times, and locations and fit ACCA definitions; statute divisible so modified categorical approach applies | Affirmed: 1992 offenses were separate occasions and qualified as violent-felony predicates under ACCA |
| § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) four-level enhancement for firearm discharge in connection with Iowa intimidation | Government failed to prove Boman discharged toward Brown; alternative possibility that Brown fired; justification not disproved | Sentencing court found discharge and connection; but ACCA status drove the guidelines range | Not addressed on merits because ACCA designation controlled sentence; no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Webster, 797 F.3d 531 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Battle, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir.) (reverse 404(b) discussion and 404(b) framework)
- United States v. Strong, 415 F.3d 902 (8th Cir.) (reluctance to admit prior offenses older than 13 years)
- United States v. Walker, 470 F.3d 1271 (8th Cir.) (admission of older priors where intervening incarceration makes them less remote)
- United States v. Halk, 634 F.3d 482 (8th Cir.) (admission of decades-old firearm convictions where incarceration reduced remoteness)
- United States v. Brun, 416 F.3d 703 (8th Cir.) (admission of 911 calls as excited utterances)
- United States v. Phelps, 168 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir.) (911 call statements admitted as excited utterances)
- United States v. Abbott, 794 F.3d 896 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing ACCA predicate determinations)