United States v. Gordon Lasley, Jr.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14832
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Gordon Lasley Jr., age 25, killed both parents with a three‑foot machete on the Iowa Meskwaki Settlement and was convicted by a jury of two counts of second‑degree murder under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153.
- Lasley asserted not guilty by reason of insanity; defense experts offered diagnoses (paranoid schizophrenia; delusional disorder) while the government expert testified he was sane and that some beliefs were cultural.
- The jury acquitted Lasley of first‑degree murder, rejected the insanity defense, and convicted on second‑degree murder counts.
- Lasley requested a jury instruction on the lesser‑included offense of involuntary manslaughter; the district court refused that instruction.
- At sentencing the court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life and imposed consecutive life sentences, finding by a preponderance that the killings were premeditated and weighing § 3553(a) factors (criminal history, brutality, risk to public, mitigation).
- On appeal Lasley challenged (1) the refusal to give an involuntary manslaughter instruction and (2) the substantive reasonableness of the life sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lasley) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by refusing involuntary manslaughter instruction | Lasley: evidence of significant mental impairment could support conviction of involuntary manslaughter (no malice) | Court/Govt: facts (repeated slashing with machete, assaultive felony) showed either murder or not; no accidental or mere negligence theory supported | No error — instruction not required because no rational basis to convict of lesser offense given record (abuse of discretion standard) |
| Whether diminished capacity/mental impairment can negate malice for lesser offense purposes | Lasley: substantial mental impairment short of legal insanity could negate malice | Govt: Insanity Reform Act bars diminished‑capacity defense; mental disease/defect only applies via insanity defense | Rejected — diminished capacity not a separate defense to negate malice; statute and precedent preclude it for general‑intent crimes |
| Whether sentencing court could consider acquitted conduct/premeditation at sentencing | Lasley: reliance on premeditation (acquitted element) made sentence substantively unreasonable | Govt/District Court: sentencing court may consider conduct proven by preponderance even if jury acquitted; Watts/precedent allow consideration of acquitted conduct | Affirmed — district court may consider acquitted conduct by preponderance when weighing § 3553(a); findings were not clearly erroneous and sentence within Guidelines is presumptively reasonable |
| Whether life‑on‑each‑count sentence was substantively unreasonable | Lasley: sentence unreasonably harsh given jury’s rejection of first‑degree murder | Court/Govt: multiple aggravating factors, criminal history, brutality, public danger, and Guidelines range justified sentence | Affirmed — sentence within Guidelines, thorough § 3553(a) analysis, not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (1973) (lesser‑included instruction required when evidence permits rational conviction on lesser offense)
- One Star v. United States, 979 F.2d 1319 (8th Cir. 1992) (involuntary manslaughter as lesser‑included offense of murder)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (district court may consider acquitted conduct at sentencing for Double Jeopardy purposes)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts that increase prescribed penalty must be proved to jury beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines advisory; discussion of sentencing factfinding)
- Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006) (limits on mental‑state evidence and defenses)
- United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review and presumption of reasonableness for within‑Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 2009) (consideration of criminal history in sentencing)