Unpublished Disposition, 933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 933 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1989)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.James Henry DODSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-10015.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 14, 1991.Decided May 24, 1991.

Before ALARCON, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.


Dodson was convicted of violating 18 USC Sec. 875(c) by sending a threatening fax from Tucson, Arizona to Canoga Park, California. The district court then had him hospitalized pursuant to 18 USC Sec. 4244 as a person suffering from a mental disease or defect. Dodson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as well as the district court's finding that he suffered from mental illness.

Dodson argues that the government had not presented sufficient evidence that he possessed specific intent to commit the crime, as required by United States v. Twine, 853 F2d 676, 680 (9th Cir 1988), and that the district court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the government presented sufficient evidence. In particular, it presented evidence that the threatening message was sent on defendant's fax machine, over his phone line (RT 12/20/88 181-83, 203-06). It also presented the testimony of the Special FBI Agent who investigated the crime and, after speaking with Dodson, concluded that he knew that sending the threat was against the law (RT 12/21/88 238).

Having reviewed the transcript of the Hearing for Determination of Mental Condition, 12/11/89, we are satisfied that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect. 18 USC Sec. 4244(d). The direct testimony of Drs. Morenz, RT 22-36, and Weir, RT 112-22, establish that defendant was properly hospitalized under the statute.



This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3