United States v. Farlee, No. 13-2315 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant used a dangerous weapon; although defendant presented evidence in support of his self-defense theory, a jury could reasonably have rejected his testimony and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the other evidence, that he did not act in self defense; and therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the defense of property jury instruction; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the lesser offense instruction; and the court found no error in the district court's instruction to the jury on the issue of self defense. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his boots and a saliva sample where, even if the affidavits do not set forth probable cause, the court found the good faith exception to the warrant requirement applicable based on the totality of the circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance motion; did not abuse its discretion in determining that the testimony of Danette Serr was relevant and not so cumulative of other testimony or so prejudicial such that it necessitated exclusion; and the court rejected defendant's arguments regarding the use of leading questions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal case. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon; while defendant presented evidence in support of his self-defense theory, a jury could reasonably reject his testimony and conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the other evidence, that he did not act in self-defense; defendant was not entitled to assert a defense of property, and the court did not err in rejecting his defense-of-property instruction; no error in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of assault by striking, beating and wounding given the undisputed level of the victim's injury; self-defense instruction given the jury was not erroneous; district court did not err in admitting evidence under the Leon good faith exception and, even if the court was in error, the error was harmless in light of the evidence of defendant's guilt; no error in denying a continuance based on the absence of a defense witness; no error in admitting evidence from a witness which went to the issue of whether the victim suffered a serious injury as a result of the assault; district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting leading questions when the witness was hesitant and delayed giving answers. Judge Colloton, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
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.