Farrington v. Officer Steven Smith, et al, No. 11-3777 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for, inter alia, excessive force against officers of the St. Paul, Minnesota Police Department. The district court granted summary judgment to Officers Storey and Sipes on plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Officer Smith. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting any of the challenged evidence where much of Officer Smith's testimony regarding his purported "mental state" was elicited by plaintiff's counsel; all of the objected-to statements actually provided context for Officer Smith's conduct; Officer Smith's concern about potential weaponization of the cell phone was not based on speculation; and the district court's jury instruction on excessive force advised the jury not to consider Officer Smith's "state of mind, intention, or motivation." The district court did not err in giving the model jury instruction. Finally, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on his excessive-force claim as dispositive of his failure-to-protect claim against Officers Storey and Sipes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil Rights. In suit alleging the defendant police officer used excessive force, the district court did not err in allowing the officer to testify as to his purported mental state regarding the situation and plaintiff's actions as much of the evidence was elicited by plaintiff's counsel, the information provided context for the officer's actions and the jury was instructed not to consider the officer's state of mind, intention or motivation; no error in permitting the officer to testify regarding possible "weaponization" of cell phones; no error in refusing plaintiff's proposed revised Eighth Circuit Jury Instruction Number 16 on excessive force as the instruction actually given was supported by the law and evidence; conclusion that the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on his excessive-force claim was dispositive of his claim that other officers failed to protect him from the use of excessive force.
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.