U.S. v. O'Keefe, 04-30691.

• Decision Date: 19 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-30691.,04-30691.
• Citation: 426 F.3d 274
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard A. O'KEEFE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

426 F.3d 274

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard A. O'KEEFE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-30691.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

September 19, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gaven Dall Kammer (argued), William P. Gibbens, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

George Chaney, Jr. (argued), Robin Elise Schulberg, Covington, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:

The defendant, Richard O'Keefe ("O'Keefe"), appeals from his jury conviction and sentence for "seaman's manslaughter," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1115.

On appeal, O'Keefe brings the following claims of error: the district court erred (1) by rejecting his proposed jury instruction stating that gross negligence or heat of passion is necessary for a conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1115, and (2) in refusing to admit the Coast Guard's accident report ("the report") without redacting the headings identifying the report's conclusions. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On or about March 13, 2001, O'Keefe, as captain of the MV AMY ANN, a tugboat, was operating the vessel on the Mississippi River when an accident occurred causing it to capsize. As a result, Gale Imboden, O'Keefe's ex-wife, drowned. Imboden was not authorized to be aboard the tugboat, despite O'Keefe's invitation to her. Within hours of the accident, O'Keefe was ordered by his supervisors to take a drug test, which ultimately revealed that O'Keefe had cocaine in his system at the time of the accident.

The Government indicted O'Keefe on one count of misconduct or negligence by a ship officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1115, for causing the death of Imboden. In a superceding indictment, O'Keefe was additionally charged with obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), for allegedly attempting to persuade or corrupt a witness in the underlying prosecution. Prior to trial, the district court issued to the parties a copy of its proposed jury instructions and inquired whether they wanted to make any objections. No objections were made and the district court instructed the parties that they could still make objections at the close of the trial. The case proceeded to trial in March of 2004.

During the trial, evidence showed that O'Keefe admitted to using cocaine three to four days before the accident. He testified, however, that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident. The Government's expert witness and O'Keefe's own expert witness contradicted O'Keefe's admission. They testified that, because of the amount of cocaine in O'Keefe's system on the day of the drug test, it was virtually impossible for him to have ingested the cocaine prior to the day of the accident. In short, their testimony suggested that O'Keefe had instead ingested the cocaine on the day of the accident and was, therefore, under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident.

O'Keefe sought to introduce into evidence the Coast Guard casualty investigation report compiled by Lieutenant Michael C. Long. However, O'Keefe requested admission of the report only if admitted in its entirety. The Government initially objected to admission of the report on the grounds that the headings in the report were unreliable and might confuse the jury. The Government then agreed to withdraw its objection if the headings were deleted from the report. The district court found that the headings in the report identified Lieutenant Long's conclusions about what caused the tugboat to sink. The district court determined that the conclusory language in the headings would confuse the jury about the correct burden of proof required to convict O'Keefe and ruled that it would only allow into evidence a redacted version of the document which omitted the headings at issue. Thus, the district court denied O'Keefe's request to introduce the report in its entirety.

Prior to the jury's deliberations, O'Keefe requested that the district court instruct the jury that in order to convict him of a violation of § 1115, the Government needed to prove either "gross negligence," or "heat of passion." The district court rejected O'Keefe's proposed jury instruction, implemented its own instruction, then again asked the parties whether there were any objections to the instruction. O'Keefe's counsel responded: "None, Your Honor." O'Keefe was subsequently convicted on the negligence charge, but he was found not guilty on the obstruction charge. O'Keefe was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release.

O'Keefe appeals, challenging as reversible error the district court's ruling on the jury charge and on admissibility of the headings in the Coast Guard report. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

A. Refusal To Give Requested Jury Charge

O'Keefe contends that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that in order to convict on a charge of seaman's manslaughter pursuant to § 1115, the Government had to prove gross negligence or heat of passion, as is required for a conviction of common law manslaughter.

We review a district court's refusal to give a requested jury charge for an abuse of discretion. United States v. John, 309 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2002). We will reverse a district court's rejection of a proposed jury instruction "only if the requested jury instruction (1) was a substantially correct statement of law, (2) was not substantially covered in the charge as a whole, and (3) concerned an important point in the trial such that the failure to instruct the jury on the issue seriously impaired the defendant's ability to present a given defense." United States v. Richards, 204 F.3d 177, 204 (5th Cir.2000). "Where no objection is made or no request for a jury instruction is given, the Fifth Circuit reviews such claims for plain error." See United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452, 467 (5th Cir.2004). See United States v. Daniels, 252 F.3d 411, 414 (5th Cir.2001). Because O'Keefe requested a particular jury instruction that was subsequently rejected by the district court, we review this claim for an abuse of discretion.

Section 1115 of Title 18 reads in pertinent part: "Every captain ... by whose misconduct, negligence, or inattention to his duties on [a] vessel the life of any person is destroyed ... shall be ... imprisoned not more than ten years...."

O'Keefe's proposed jury instruction reads in part:

[T]he government must prove that Mr. O'Keefe engaged in "misconduct, negligence or inattention to his duties." That is a term of art. It means "gross negligence," which in turn has two subparts: that the defendant (a) acted with wanton or reckless disregard for human life; and (b) had knowledge that his conduct was a threat to the life of another or knowledge of such circumstances as could reasonably have enabled him to foresee the peril to which his act might subject another.

As noted, the district court rejected this proposed jury instruction, and instead charged the jury, in relevant part, that,

[f]or you to find the Defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the Government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

....

... [I]f a person lost his or her life, the loss of life was proximately caused by the misconduct, negligence or inattention of the Defendant to his duties upon the vessel, upon which he was employed.

The district court then defined the term negligence, stating that "[t]he term `negligence' is defined as a breach of duty. A breach of a duty is defined as an omission to perform some duty, or it is a violation of some rule or standard of care, which is made to govern and control one in the discharge of some duty."

O'Keefe argues that under the common law definition of manslaughter and the companion statutory definition for general manslaughter, 18 U.S.C. § 1112, the government is required, in the absence of malice, to prove gross negligence or heat of passion to sustain a conviction under § 1115. Citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 23, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), O'Keefe further contends that Congress is presumed to have incorporated common law meanings in the terms it uses in the statutes.

The district court, after conducting a historical analysis of how other courts have applied § 1115, concluded that Congress did not intend that proof of negligence or heat of passion would be required for a conviction under § 1115. The court cited at least five early cases, all strongly suggesting that Congress did not intend a requirement of the heightened mens rea that O'Keefe seeks. See, e.g., United States v. Warner, 28 F.Cas. 404, 407 (D.Ohio, 1848); United States v. Farnham, 25 F.Cas. 1042, 1044 (S.D. New York, 1853); United States v. Collyer, 25 F.Cas. 554, 578 (S.D.N.Y.1855); United States v. Keller, 19 F. 633, 638 (D. West Virginia, 1884); and Van Schaick v. United States, 159 F. 847, 850 (2d Cir.1908). After conducting its analysis concerning these cases, the district court stated, "[i]t appears clear from the purpose of the statute, its legislative history and the available case law interpreting it that any degree of negligence is sufficient to meet the culpability threshold."¹ O'Keefe's attempt to distinguish the cases relied on by the district court is to no avail. Indeed, the two cases he relies on, United States v. Fesler, 781 F.2d 384, 392-93 (5th Cir.1986) and United States v. Browner, 889 F.2d 549, 553 (5th Cir.1989), are inapposite because they both track the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1112, for involuntary manslaughter.

This court has consistently held that when the plain meaning of the statute is clear on its face, courts are required to give effect to the language of the statute according to its terms. See Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U.S. 681, 685, 105 S.Ct. 2297, 2301, 85 L.Ed.2d...