United States v. Halwood
Docket: No. 04-10520
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 5, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Mervie Halwood, the defendant-appellant, contests his conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153, stemming from an incident on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Del Muerto, Arizona. Halwood challenges the district court's decision to provide a flight instruction to the jury, the denial of his motion for a mistrial due to an improper question from the prosecutor, and the failure of law enforcement to record his statements, claiming a violation of due process. The appellate court affirms the district court's decisions. To justify a flight instruction, the evidence must support four inferences: (1) the defendant's behavior indicates flight; (2) flight suggests consciousness of guilt; (3) consciousness of guilt relates to the crime charged; and (4) this consciousness leads to actual guilt of the crime charged. In Halwood's case, testimony from an accomplice confirmed his involvement in the assault and subsequent flight from the scene, while Halwood acknowledged awareness of the victim's serious injuries upon leaving. This evidence was deemed sufficient for the flight instruction. Regarding the prosecutor's improper question, the government conceded the error, and the court focused on whether this impacted the jury's decision. It was determined that the isolated misconduct, which involved a question about a statement from a third party, did not prejudice Halwood’s right to a fair trial, especially since the district court promptly struck the question from the record and instructed the jury to disregard it. Halwood's request for the court to mandate electronic recording of all interrogations was denied, referencing previous rulings that such a requirement falls under legislative, not judicial, purview. Additionally, the argument that the failure to record a witness statement constituted evidence destruction was rejected, as the government's obligation to preserve evidence does not extend to obtaining evidence. The court ultimately affirms the district court's rulings, stating the disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except under specific Ninth Circuit rules.