U.S. v. Lee

• Decision Date: 07 March 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1502,83-1502
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alf Robert LEE, a/k/a Robert Lee, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 1142

729 F.2d 1142

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alf Robert LEE, a/k/a Robert Lee, Appellant.

No. 83-1502.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 1984.

Decided March 7, 1984.

Rodney S. Webb, U.S. Atty., Fargo, N.D., for appellee.

Jonathan T. Garaas, Garaas Law Firm, Fargo, N.D., for appellant.

Before BRIGHT, ROSS and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Alf Robert Lee was convicted of two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314, transporting checks in interstate commerce of more than $5000 value and knowing the same to have been taken by fraud. At trial, Lee's defense was insanity. On appeal, Lee submits three allegations of error: 1) that the trial court erred in its instruction of the jury; 2) that the evidence was insufficient to establish his sanity by proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and 3) that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a continuance to allow further psychiatric examination. We find no merit in the above allegations of error and, for the reasons discussed herein, we affirm.

Lee first argues that the court erred in submitting Instruction No. 18 to the jury. Instruction No. 18 directed the jury to consider the defense of insanity "only if it has first determined that the defendant committed the acts charged in the indictment." Lee contends that Instruction No. 18 should have told the jury that it must first find that the defendant committed all the elements of the offense, not simply all of the "acts" charged in the indictment. We find that Lee's reliance on the word "acts" is misplaced. Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and a verdict will not be overturned by picking and choosing words from an instruction without regard to the realities of the trial. E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Berkley & Co., 620 F.2d 1247, 1270 (8th Cir.1980). When Instruction No. 18 is read in conjunction with all of the instructions, it is clear that the trial court properly instructed the jury.

Lee's second allegation of error is that the evidence was insufficient to justify a reasonable jury finding that the government had proved that he was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject Lee's argument on this issue. To reverse the conviction we must find that the prosecution's evidence was so weak that a reasonable juror would necessarily possess a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's sanity. United States v. American Horse, 671 F.2d 286, 288 (8th Cir.1982). We find that the government produced sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably find that Lee was sane during the relevant time period.

Lee also contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance. The trial court has discretion to grant continuances, and this discretion may only be reviewed for an abuse thereof. United States v. Little, 567 F.2d 346, 348 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 969, 98 S.Ct. 1608, 56 L.Ed.2d 60 (1978). Normally, the trial judge must balance a number of factors in deciding whether a continuance is appropriate:

One consideration is the nature of the case itself. In a complicated case, * * * or one set for trial before adequate time has been provided for trial...