United States v. Darold Maxfield

135 F.4th 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · April 30, 2025 · No. 24-1001

Summary

This Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirms the criminal conviction of Darold Maxfield for theft of public money and making false statements. On appeal, Maxfield challenged the district court's admission of a supervisor's memorandum of reprimand and rebuttal testimony regarding his truthfulness during cross-examination. The appellate court held that the evidence was properly admitted under Federal Rules of Evidence 608(a) and 608(b) to impeach Maxfield's credibility rather than as prohibited propensity evidence under Rule 404(b). Consequently, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's judgment.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Writing for the Court
COLLOTON, Chief Judge; BENTON; KELLY
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decision date
April 30, 2025
Docket number
24-1001
Procedural posture
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
Standard of review
abuse of discretion
Precedential value
published
Parties
Darold Maxfield v. United States
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

evidenceimpeachmentstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred by admitting cross‑examination about the memorandum of reprimand under Rule 404(b) rather than Rule 608(b).
  2. Whether the district court erred by admitting reputation and opinion testimony about Maxfield’s truthfulness under Rule 608(a).

Holdings

  1. The district court did not err; the cross‑examination was admissible under Rule 608(b) because it was probative of Maxfield’s character for truthfulness.
  2. The district court did not err; reputation and opinion testimony about Maxfield’s truthfulness was admissible under Rule 608(a).

Key quotations

The challenged evidence was not offered to prove Maxfield’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion he acted in accordance with the character, as prohibited by Rule 404(b)(1). Rather, the disputed cross‑examination was admissible under Rule 608(b)(1). (at 1112)
These statements from Burris and McLean fall within the ambit of Rule 608(a), so the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the government to elicit this testimony. (at 1112)

Factual background

Maxfield, a supervisory veteran service representative at the VA, falsified a disability benefits questionnaire to obtain higher benefits. A supervisor issued a memorandum of reprimand alleging a lack of candor regarding time‑card discrepancies. At trial the government cross‑examined Maxfield about the memorandum and introduced rebuttal testimony from the supervisor and a co‑worker to impeach his credibility.

Procedural history

The district court convicted Maxfield of theft of public money and false statements, sentenced him to five months' imprisonment, one year supervised release, and restitution. Maxfield appealed the district court's admission of evidence concerning a memorandum of reprimand and testimony about his character for truthfulness.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…