Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jerrell Johnson v. Stephen Rankin, 4th Cir. (2013)
Jerrell Johnson v. Stephen Rankin, 4th Cir. (2013)
Jerrell Johnson v. Stephen Rankin, 4th Cir. (2013)
No. 12-1414
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
United States District Judge. (2:11-cv-00415-RBS-TEM)
Argued:
Decided:
December 2, 2013
PER CURIAM:
Jerrell R. Johnson, the administrator of Kirill Denyakins
estate, brought this action against City of Portsmouth Police
Officer Stephen D. Rankin, alleging that Rankin was liable for
excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42
U.S.C. 1983 and battery and gross negligence under Virginia
law.
Johnson
evidentiary
determinations.
For
the
reasons
that
follow, we affirm.
I.
On the night of April 23, 2011, Rankin received a Priority
One emergency call from City of Portsmouth, Virginia, Dispatch
reporting a burglary in progress at an apartment building.
Priority One calls are reserved for situations in which someone
is in physical danger.
According
his
head,
apparently
trying
to
gain
entry
into
the
building.
Rankin testified that he positioned himself about thirtyfive
feet
away
from
the
suspectDenyakin,
2
an
immigrant
from
Kazakhstan.
According to
shoved his right hand in his pants, a place where Rankin knew
that suspects can hide weapons.
called clear the air into his radio, which is a signal that
lets
other
unfolding.
officers
know
that
an
emergency
situation
is
course
of
about
shots
as
Denyakin
seconds,
and
each
shot
struck
to
the
ground.
Although
Rankin
testified that Denyakin had his right hand inside his pants when
he started the charge, he is unsure when Denyakin removed his
hand because his focus shifted to Denyakins center mass when
he began charging.
Johnson
brought
this
action
against
Rankin,
both
force
in
violation
of
the
Fourth
Amendment
under
1983 and state law claims for battery and gross negligence. 1
jury trial commenced on February 28, 2012.
At trial,
testimony
about
Denyakins
heavy
expert
testimony
of
toxicologist
drinking
and
He also offered
Alphonse
Polkis,
who
In
coherent
and
coordinated
before
his
encounter
with
went
up
and
down
steps.
Rankin
also
offered
expert
testimony
that
Denyakin
was
chronic
alcoholic
who
had
Denyakin
walked
without
stumbling,
During that
and
police
of
Rankins
motivation
for
shooting
Denyakin.
One
Another
allowing
the
evidence
damages stage.
only
at
the
punitive
an
autopsy
photograph.
At
trial,
Johnson
called
who
witness.
performed
Kinnison
the
autopsy
testified
on
Denyakinas
regarding
an
gunshot
expert
wound
on
the edges of [the wound] tore made me favor that [the bullet]
went from the palm of his hand to the back of his hand, but Im
not absolutely certain that it couldnt have gone from back to
front.
claiming that it showed that Denyakins hand could not have been
in
his
pants
typically
at
insert
the
their
time
hands
of
the
into
shooting
their
pants
because
with
people
the
palm
. . .
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
on
all
counts.
Johnson
filed
this
timely
appeal,
challenging
the
aforesaid
evidentiary
decisions.
We
have
II.
Johnson contends that the district court erred in admitting
prior bad act evidence that portrayed Denyakin as . . . an
alcoholic, an abuser of women, and that he had previously been
arrested by a different police officer. 2
stemmed
from
police,
during
Denyakins
which
February
police
21,
officer
encounter
informed
him
that
with
the
police
could
shoot
instructions.
him
if
he
did
not
comply
with
their
review
admissibility
the
of
district
evidence
courts
for
abuse
rulings
of
regarding
discretion.
the
United
A district
applies
erroneous
legal
principles
to
the
case,
established
admissibility
of
four-part
prior
act
test
evidence
for
under
United
This Court
determining
Federal
Rule
the
of
Evidence 404(b):
(1) The evidence must be relevant to an issue, such as
an element of an offense, and must not be offered to
establish the general character of the defendant. In
this regard, the more similar the prior act is (in
terms of physical similarity or mental state) to the
act being proved, the more relevant it becomes. (2)
The act must be necessary in the sense that it is
probative of an essential claim or an element of the
offense. (3) The evidence must be reliable. And (4)
the
evidences
probative
value
must
not
be
substantially
outweighed
by
confusion
or
unfair
prejudice in the sense that it tends to subordinate
reason to emotion in the factfinding process.
Cole, 631 F.3d at 154 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 617
F.3d 286, 296-97 (4th Cir. 2010)).
With
respect
to
the
first
step
of
this
inquiry,
Rankin
contends that the evidence is relevant for two reasons that are
8
Second,
We disagree.
Denyakins
The events of
testimony
illustrates
his
regarding
heightened
Denyakins
ability
to
alcoholism
act
while
further
intoxicated.
shot.
However,
pursuant
to
Virginia
law,
contributory
it requires sufficient
368 S.E.2d 268, 280 (Va. 1988); see also Arndt v. Russillo, 343
S.E.2d
84,
88
(Va.
1986)
(To
establish
th[e]
[contributory
drive
recklessly
.).
Furthermore,
Virginias
Monk v. Hess,
191 S.E.2d 229, 230 (Va. 1972) (quoting Leslie v. Nitz, 184
S.E.2d 755, 757 (Va. 1971)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
This
certainly
district
court
is
did
subjective
not
err
in
inquiry.
determining
Accordingly,
that
the
the
evidence
631
F.3d
at
154.
Each
of
Johnsons
claims
turns
on
as
the
February
21,
2011,
10
incident
and
Denyakins
The third
inquiry
regarding
whether
the
prior
act
evidences
of
Evidence
403.
After
the
district
court
overruled
The
court
any
also
prejudice.
gave
In
cautionary
this
way,
the
instruction
to
district
court
combat
implicitly
as
the
record
as
whole
indicates
appropriate
judicial
regarding
Denyakins
alcoholism
and
Because the
prior
encounter
11
that the district court did not err in admitting this evidence
pursuant to Rule 404(b).
III.
Next, Johnson contends that the district court erred in
excluding Rankins Facebook postings from the liability phase of
the trial.
postings
were
particularly
relevant
to
[Rankins]
motive,
56
(1983)].
Johnson
now
contends
that
the
as
shooting
an
immigrantand
lie
about
why
he
did
it.
error,
rights,
(2)
and
which
(4)
is
which
plain,
seriously
12
which
affects
affects
the
substantial
fairness,
integrity,
or
public
reputation
of
judicial
proceedings.
trial
court
excluded
the
postings
on
the
grounds that they were (1) inflammatory and (2) irrelevant due
to the standard that the Supreme Court set forth in Graham v.
OConnor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
bear
the
subjective
burden
of
proving
motivations
that
that
were
the
officer
malicious
acted
and
with
sadistic.
the
credibility
of
an
officers
account
of
the
Therefore,
Graham
contrary
to
Rankins
assertions,
does
not
motive
and
credibility
could
also
weigh
on
In Virginia,
574
S.E.2d
258,
261
13
(Va.
2003).
If
Rankin
was
untruthful
about
whether
Denyakin
charged
at
him,
it
could
the
liability
in
Facebook
this
postings
case.
As
are
we
irrelevant
explained
to
Rankins
above,
Rankins
motivation does not affect his liability under 1983 due to the
Supreme Courts Graham decision.
to
credibility.
relevant
to
this
In
claim
sum,
Rankins
beyond
although
liability,
their
the
they
bearing
Facebook
are
on
Rankins
postings
relevant
in
are
such
evidence
for
lack
of
relevance,
14
the
district
court
also
The
court
agreed
with
Johnsons
assessment
that
the
to
value,
determine
we
Rankins
liability
that
the
and
their
district
high
court
did
prejudicial
not
err
by
IV.
Finally, Johnson argues that the district court erred in
excluding
Denyakins
an
autopsy
hand.
photograph
Johnson
showing
contends
that
gunshot
the
wound
to
photograph
is
make her any more sure of whether Denyakins hand was palmforward when the bullet entered it.
She then
not entirely certain about how the bullet hit Denyakins hand
or what position he was in when he received the injury.
Johnson contends that the district court erred in hinging
the photographs admissibility on whether it would aid Kinnison
in illustrating her testimony.
for
the
Rule
403
balancing
test.
This
Court
has
absent
clear
abuse
of
discretion.
United
In light
16
err
in
excluding
the
photograph,
even
if
it
had
some
probative value.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court
did
not
Denyakins
abuse
its
discretion
alcoholism
and
in
prior
(1)
allowing
encounter
with
evidence
police
of
under
from
the
liability
phase
of
the
trial,
and
therefore
affirm
the
district
courts
evidentiary
determinations.
AFFIRMED
17