United States v. Butler ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-4362
SEAN BUTLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
(CR-95-480)
Submitted: October 29, 1996
Decided: December 17, 1996
Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Gregory B. English, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Dennis M. Ken-
nedy, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Sean Butler, a prisoner in the Maximum Security Facility of the
Lorton Reformatory Correctional Complex, Lorton, Virginia, was
convicted of one count each of assault with a dangerous weapon (18
U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) (1994)), assault resulting in serious bodily harm
(18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) (1994)), and prisoner possession of a shank
(18 U.S.C. § 13 (1994), assimilating Va. Code Ann. § 53.1-203(4)
(Michie 1994) and Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-10 (Michie 1996)). Finding
no prejudicial error, we affirm.
Appellant's offenses involved the stabbing of a fellow inmate with
a shank during an outside recreation period. Appellant admitted at
trial that he had stabbed the victim, but claimed he acted in self-
defense. Appellant testified on direct examination that he was in
prison pursuant to convictions "for serious felonies, including kidnap-
ping and carrying a pistol without a license." On cross-examination,
Appellant admitted, without objection, that he committed the kidnap-
ping "while armed." When the prosecutor asked Appellant if he had
also been convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon, defense
counsel objected, and, after a brief bench conference, the objection
was overruled. The prosecutor asked the question again, and Appel-
lant answered in the affirmative. On appeal, Appellant argues that the
district court erred in allowing this question.
While the admission of evidence of a prior conviction for assault
with a dangerous weapon presents a close question, we hold that even
if the district court erred in admitting the evidence, the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499
U.S. 279 (1991). As stated above, the only issue at trial was whether
Appellant stabbed the victim in self-defense. The Government pro-
duced overwhelming evidence contradicting this claim, including the
Appellant's own testimony. We therefore conclude that the two brief
2
references to a prior conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon,
committed under factually distinguishable circumstances, were harm-
less beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's convictions and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the material before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3