United States v. Don Allen Parker

604 F.2d 1327 (10th Cir. 1979) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · August 30, 1979 · No. No. 78-1002

Summary

The Tenth Circuit reversed Don Allen Parker's convictions for assaulting a federal officer and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. The court held that an Oklahoma deferred judgment did not constitute a prior conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1), requiring dismissal of the weapons-possession charge, and that admission of evidence concerning the prior proceedings also required reversal of the assault conviction. The court further addressed the exclusion of evidence concerning the agents' conduct and the need for a more specific jury instruction concerning whether the agents were acting within the scope of their official duties.

Holdings

  1. An Oklahoma deferred judgment under the Oklahoma Deferred Judgment Act does not constitute a conviction within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1), so Parker was improperly convicted on the firearm-possession count.
  2. Admission of evidence of Parker's prior Oklahoma proceeding was improper, and because the evidence was heard by the jury, the assault conviction also had to be reversed.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence that the agents allegedly drunkenly abused two witnesses after handcuffing them.
  4. A more specific instruction explaining that the agents had to be acting within the scope of their employment and not on a personal frolic would have been proper and desirable in the circumstances, but the court did not decide whether the omission was plain error.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an Oklahoma deferred judgment and probation proceeding constituted a prior felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1).
  2. Whether admission of evidence concerning the Oklahoma proceeding improperly affected the assault conviction.
  3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence concerning the federal agents' conduct shortly after the assault.
  4. Whether the jury instructions adequately explained that the agents had to be acting within the scope of their official duties rather than on a personal frolic.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (10)

  • United States v. Stober, No. 77-1854 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 1970) (opinion on rehearing en banc)(followed)
  • United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 342-43, 92 S. Ct. 515, 30 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1971)(followed)
  • United States v. Burkhart, 458 F.2d 201 (10th Cir. 1972)(followed)
  • United States v. Gilliland, 586 F.2d 1384 (10th Cir. 1978)(followed)
  • Rigby v. Beech Aircraft Co., 548 F.2d 288, 293 (10th Cir. 1977)(followed)
  • United States v. Reid, 517 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1975)(followed)
  • United States v. Frizzi, 491 F.2d 1231 (1st Cir. 1974)(followed)
  • United States v. Michalek, 464 F.2d 442 (8th Cir. 1972)(followed)
  • United States v. Heliczer, 373 F.2d 241 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 917 (1967)(followed)
  • United States v. Linn, 438 F.2d 456, 458 (10th Cir. 1971)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…