US v. Kevin English, No. 12-6911 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6911 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner Appellee, v. KEVIN LOU ENGLISH, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-02187-D-JG) Submitted: April 29, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence H. Brenner, BRENNER & BRENNER, P.A., Carrboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Joshua B. Royster, Seth M. Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Lou English appeals the district court s order committing him as a sexually dangerous person under the Adam Walsh Child Protection ยง 4248(a) (2006). and Safety Act of 2006, 18 U.S.C. We have reviewed the record and affirm. English argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in allowing a prior victim to testify as an impeachment witness to contradict his testimony where the Government witness was not because allowed she was to not call that timely witness disclosed as to a fact English. English contends that this violated his due process rights to cross-examine witnesses representation. not harmless against him and to effective In addition, English argues that this error was based on the other evidence presented at the commitment hearing. We review a district court s decision regarding whether a witness should be allowed to testify for abuse of discretion. Cir. 2006). See United States v. Fulks, 454 F.3d 410, 413 (4th Moreover, [e]videntiary rulings are subject to harmless error review. United States v. Johnson, 617 F.3d 286, 292 (4th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). [I]n order to find a district court s error harmless, we need only be able to say with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment 2 was not substantially swayed by the error. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the witness impeachment testimony regarding extrinsic evidence for purposes of contradicting English s testimony. 608(b) & advisory committee note See Fed. R. Evid. 607, to 2003 amendments (Rule 608(b) s application is limited to impeachment of a witness character for truthfulness and therefore does not apply to extrinsic evidence offered for other grounds of impeachment such as contradiction). Here, the witness testimony did not concern prior inconsistent statements otherwise inadmissible as hearsay. Cf. United States (impeachment otherwise violate Morlang, testimony may inadmissible statements, conclude v. which that Burkhardt, 484 are due F. not be evidence admission English 531 of this 801 183 used such inadmissible process App x F.2d as as a Cir. guise prior rights. See Cir. to We testimony United 2012) 1975) admit inconsistent hearsay). witness (4th (4th further did not States v. (unpublished). Finally, as we conclude that the district court did not commit error, we need not address whether any error was harmful. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
