United States v. Rodella
804 F.3d 1317
10th Cir.2015Background
- On March 11, 2014, Sheriff Thomas Rodella and his adult son pursued Michael Tafoya in an unmarked Jeep after an on-road encounter; Rodella entered Tafoya’s car, displayed a .38 revolver, struck Tafoya with his badge, and deputies later arrested and detained Tafoya; charges against Tafoya were dismissed and he reported the incident to the FBI.
- A federal grand jury superseding indictment charged Rodella with deprivation of civil rights under 18 U.S.C. § 242 and brandishing a firearm during the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); jury convicted on both counts and district court sentenced Rodella to 121 months’ imprisonment.
- At trial the government advanced two alternate theories under § 242: an unlawful arrest (lack of probable cause) and use of excessive/unreasonable force (including use/threatened use of a dangerous weapon).
- Defense contested sufficiency of evidence, sought a jury instruction requiring a showing of more-than-de-minimis injury for excessive-force liability, and objected to admission and use of three prior similar incidents under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), admission of Rodella’s training materials, and certain prosecutorial closing statements.
- The district court admitted testimony about three prior traffic encounters (Maes, Ledesma, Gonzales) and Rodella’s pursuit training for limited purposes (motive, intent, plan, knowledge, absence of mistake); the jury was given limiting instructions. Trial evidence supported the government’s version; Rodella did not testify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 242 conviction | Government: evidence (Tafoya, Thompson, corroboration) supports unlawful arrest and excessive-force theories, including willfulness and use/threatened use of a weapon | Rodella: insufficient evidence of unlawful arrest or excessive force; provable traffic violations justified arrest; emotional injury de minimis | Affirmed — viewing evidence most favorably to the Government, a rational jury could find willfulness, unlawful arrest (provocation by officer), and unreasonable force (weapon displayed/used) beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Jury instruction requiring > de minimis injury for excessive-force theory | Government: no such general Fourth Amendment requirement; injury extent is probative but not an element | Rodella: Cortez requires proof of more-than-de-minimis actual injury for excessive-force claims | Affirmed — court need not instruct on a de minimis-injury requirement except in limited handcuffing contexts; Wilkins and post‑Cortez caselaw limit Cortez to handcuffing cases |
| Admission of other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b) | Government: prior incidents admissible to prove motive, intent, plan, knowledge, absence of mistake (willfulness), and relevant given similarities | Rodella: other-acts only show propensity (for road rage) and are unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 | Affirmed — district court applied Huddleston factors, limiting instruction given; other-act evidence probative of willfulness and not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and related closing statements; admission of training materials; cumulative error | Government: closing used 404(b) evidence for permissible purposes; training evidence shows knowledge of proper pursuit rules and willfulness; any improper statements harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Rodella: prosecutor appealed to propensity and emotion; training and 404(b) use prejudicial; cumulative errors deprived him of fair trial | Affirmed — most challenged remarks either not improper or harmless given limiting instruction, overwhelming evidence, and jury instructions; training materials admissible to show knowledge/willfulness; cumulative effect harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir.) (discusses more-than-de-minimis injury requirement in handcuffing excessive-force claims)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010) (injury is not a threshold requirement for excessive-force claims; force—not injury—controls analysis)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (rejected significant-injury threshold for Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (framework for admissibility of other-act evidence under Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir.) (404(b) admissibility requires a propensity-free chain of reasoning linking other acts to a proper non-propensity purpose)