Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After plaintiffs' 23-month-old son, Jacob, drowned in a pond after climbing out of his crib and leaving their home in the middle of the night, plaintiffs filed a products liability and negligence suit against Dorel. Dorel denied that the doorknob cover it designed and manufactured was defective or unreasonably dangerous when used properly. The jury unanimously found Dorel was not liable for Jacob’s death and rendered a general verdict in Dorel’s favor. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting evidence that mother failed to secure the chain lock the night of Jacob’s death and father knew before that night that Jacob could defeat the doorknob cover. Even if the court accepted plaintiffs' alleged evidentiary errors for the purpose of argument, plaintiffs failed to establish how those errors prejudicially influenced the outcome of the trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Coterel v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Government filed suit to determine whether its 2004 tax lien on a foreclosed property had priority over several other competing interests in the property. The district court granted summary judgment for the Government. US Bank held an interest via a 2006 deed of trust, and appealed the district court's judgment. In chronological order, the 2004 deed of trust was recorded (March 29, 2004), the date the Government’s tax lien for unpaid 2004 taxes was assessed (November 21, 2005), and the date the 2006 deed of trust was recorded (July 11, 2006). The court concluded that the release-first sequencing combines with the lengthy gap in recording to prevent the court from considering the release of the 2004 deed of trust and recordation of the 2006 deed of trust to have occurred sufficiently contemporaneously to be part of the same transaction. Allowing U.S. Bank to stretch the notion of “same transaction” to include a more-than-two-month gap between release of an old deed of trust and recordation of a new one would undermine the integrity of the recording statute. The court concluded that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to the Government because no genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the 2006 deed of trust retained the priority of the released 2004 deed of trust. View "United States v. US Bank Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to armed bank robbery while on federal supervised release from two other felony bank robbery convictions. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in ordering the consecutive sentences. In this case, the district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors, noting defendant's prior convictions for crimes of violence as well as the seriousness of his noncompliance and his continued lack of regard for the law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Valure" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to four counts of production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. On appeal, defendant challenged his 960-month sentence as substantively unreasonable. Defendant argued that the district court did not give enough weight to the fact that his starting and stopping of the video recording of him anally and vaginally penetrating a two-year-old child resulted in four separate counts of conviction, rather than one, for production of child pornography. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in sentencing defendant where the district court said that conduct was the worst it had ever seen. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sholds" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of one count of assault and two counts of domestic assault by a habitual offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 117. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony of defendant's then girlfriend about the facts underlying his three prior tribal-court convictions for domestic abuse because the testimony was relevant to prove that the convictions had occurred and that she was a spouse or intimate partner; regardless of whether the testimony was relevant to prove that defendant's prior crimes constituted "any assault" under section 117, it was admissible for other purposes; and any prejudicial effect that the testimony might have had on the jury was mitigated by the district court's curative instruction. The court also concluded that, because the right of counsel does not apply in tribal-court proceedings, the use of defendant's prior tribal-court convictions as predicate offenses in a section 117(a) prosecution does not violate the Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Drapeau" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 280 grams of crack cocaine and the district court sentenced him to 94 months in prison. The district court subsequently granted defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence because the district court committed procedural sentencing error when it assigned three criminal history points to a 1992 conviction because the conviction fell outside the 15-year limitation period in USSG 4A1.2(e). At the resentencing hearing, the main issue was whether criminal history points should be assessed for this 2013 conviction. The district court concluded that the conviction counted, granted the government’s renewed motions for a substantial assistance reduction, applied the same 30% reduction to the bottom of defendant’s revised guidelines range, and resentenced him to 84 months in prison. The court concluded that, even if defendants 2013 conviction was not a “prior sentence” for purposes of section 4A1.2(a)(1), the district court could “justify an increased sentence by affirmatively identifying relevant conduct or events that occurred subsequent to the original sentencing proceedings.” Here, the conduct underlying the 2013 conviction was not relevant conduct where the 2013 conviction involved different drugs and “a time gap.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Tidwell" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that, although the district court did not calculate the amended guideline range in accordance with USSG 1B1.10(b)(1), any procedural error was harmless; it is not an abuse of discretion for the district court to adhere to its decision that a term of 120 months was appropriate, even with a modestly reduced advisory guideline range; and no greater explanation was required. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of transmitting a threat to injure through interstate communications, 18 U.S.C. 875(c), and threatening a federal employee with intent to retaliate, 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B). Defendant, a housekeeping aid at the V.A. hospital in Little Rock, called a V.A. Crisis Hotline and said he had a gun and was going to shoot his supervisor. The court concluded that the district court’s jury instruction defining the elements of a section 875(c) offense, though consistent with then-governing Eighth Circuit precedent, omitted the mens rea element now required by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Elonis v. United States. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the conviction. The court concluded, however, that section 115(a)(1)(B) applied to defendant’s threats to assault or murder his supervisor; that the jury was properly instructed regarding the mens rea element of this offense; and that the evidence was sufficient to convict. The court rejected defendant’s contentions that the district court committed errors relating to his entrapment defense, and plain error regarding an alleged patient-psychotherapist privilege. Accordingly, the court confirmed the section 115(a)(1)(B) conviction. View "United States v. Wynn" on Justia Law

Larry and Elaine, husband and wife, filed suit in Iowa state court in 2008 against multiple parties, including defendant, whom they claimed was negligent in his pre-bankruptcy and bankruptcy-planning advice. The jury found in favor of defendant and warded him a $12,200 judgment. In 2013, the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the award of unpaid legal fees. Larry and Elaine then filed this action in 2014, alleging that defendant was negligent in advising them regarding their bankruptcy, and that their sons acted in concert with Putnam to close the bankruptcy through the Settlement Agreement with the bankruptcy trustee. The district court determined that the jury verdict in the prior case disposed of all issues in the instant case but one: the alleged failure of Putnam to protect Larry and Elaine’s interests when the bankruptcy was closed. The court held that Larry and Elaine's claim is barred by res judicata. Larry and Elaine’s claim in the instant action relates to the same cause of action that was adjudicated to a final judgment on the merits in the first malpractice case, and Larry and Elaine have failed to show that their claim could not have been fully and fairly adjudicated in the first action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Schaefer v. Putnam" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Anoka under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment while he was in custody at the county jail. The district court denied Anoka's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. In this case, plaintiff arrived at the jail with instructions from his doctor in the form of a Vicodin prescription, and the deputies and the jail nurse ignored his complaints of pain and requests for treatment. When plaintiff was prescribed additional medication by a jail doctor, he did not receive it. Moreover, defendants had fair warning about the unconstitutionality of a failure to provide pain medication for serious dental conditions in particular. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying defendants qualified immunity. The court declined to impose sanctions. View "Dadd v. Anoka County" on Justia Law