United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Michael Stanfield, Defendant-appellant, 35 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CaseBefore: CHOY and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and MARQUEZ,** District Judge.
ORDER***
The district court erred as a matter of law in understanding that aberrant behavior is to be determined by the behavior's "spontaneity and thoughtfulness or the lack thereof". Rather, there is "an aberrant behavior spectrum," in terms of which aberrant behavior is to be determined. United States v. Dickey, 924 F.2d 836, 839 (9th Cir. 1991). A "whole series of actions," planned in some detail, may constitute a single aberrant act. United States v. Takai, 941 F.2d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 1991).
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this order.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4
The Honorable Alfred C. Marquez, Senior District Judge, for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
