United States v. McCoy

Eighth Circuit

United States v. McCoy

131 F.3d 760, 1997 WL 773367

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 17, 1997

DocketNo. 97-2883EM

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 131 F.3d 760 (United States v. McCoy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. McCoy, 131 F.3d 760, 1997 WL 773367 (8th Cir. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marcus P. McCoy appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Relying on Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, McCoy contends the district court improperly allowed the Government to ask a defense witness whose credibility was crucial [761]*761to the resolution of the case if the witness and McCoy were affiliated with the same street gang. Contrary to McCoy’s view, evidence of common gang membership was admissible to show bias on the witness’s part towards McCoy and the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 40B. See United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 46, 49, 52-55, 105 S.Ct. 465, 467, 468-70, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984); see also O’Neal v. Delo, 44 F.3d 655, 661 (8th Cir.1995). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the Government’s limited inquiry about a shared membership in a street gang. We affirm McCoy’s conviction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Marcus P. McCoy appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. Relying on Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, McCoy contends the district court improperly allowed the Government to ask a defense witness whose credibility was crucial [761]*761to the resolution of the case if the witness and McCoy were affiliated with the same street gang. Contrary to McCoy’s view, evidence of common gang membership was admissible to show bias on the witness’s part towards McCoy and the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 40B. See United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 46, 49, 52-55, 105 S.Ct. 465, 467, 468-70, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984); see also O’Neal v. Delo, 44 F.3d 655, 661 (8th Cir.1995). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the Government’s limited inquiry about a shared membership in a street gang. We affirm McCoy’s conviction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F.3d 760, 1997 WL 773367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mccoy-ca8-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack