United States v. LaFontaine, No. 16-1440 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and 18 month sentence for making a threatening communication. The court rejected defendant's claim that the government repeatedly committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument by stating that defendant was not presumed innocent, indirectly commenting on his failure to testify, expressing its opinion on his guilt, and personally attacking his counsel. In this case, none of the actions defendant complains of were improper and thus the court concluded that the government committed no reversible prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in admitting defendant's 2013 conversation with a federal employee, in which defendant's comments were perceived as threatening; in imposing GPS monitoring as a condition of supervised release because it was reasonable and narrowly tailored as possible; and by imposing a total alcohol ban and substance abuse treatment because he waived any challenge to these conditions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument (comments on the presumption of innocence, defendant's failure to testify, attacks on defense counsel)rejected as the comments were within the latitude afforded closing argument or, when taken in context, were not improper; in this prosecution for making a threatening communication, the district court did not err in admitting evidence concerning prior comments to a federal court employee as the testimony was relevant to the issue of whether defendant intended to make a threat or knew his voicemail would be perceived as a threat and the incident was similar in nature to the incident giving rise to this charge; no error in imposing a GPS monitoring requirement for defendant's supervised release as it would aid authorities in tracking him in the event he sought to contact anyone he had previously threatened; defendant failed to object to provisions in his supervision concerning an alcohol ban and substance abuse treatment and thereby waived any challenged to the conditions.
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.