## Facts

- Kenneth Bady, a diabetic, experienced a medical episode at a friend’s home; firefighters responded and attempted to treat him with glucose.
- Bady refused treatment and pushed past firefighters to go outside; firefighters reported him as “combative” and called police.
- When Minneapolis police arrived, Sergeant Charles Peter was told by a paramedic that Bady had assaulted a firefighter.
- Officers attempted to handcuff Bady; he resisted, and a physical struggle occurred.
- An officer reported Bady was grabbing for the officer’s gun; two officers deployed tasers multiple times.
- After being tased at least three times, Bady stopped resisting, was handcuffed, and was transported to a hospital.
- Bady sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force, focusing on the taser use.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting testimony that a paramedic told an officer Bady had assaulted a firefighter, over a hearsay objection.
2. Whether the district court’s excessive-force jury instruction (based on the Eighth Circuit model instruction and *Graham v. Connor*) was erroneous and required reversal.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the officers.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the paramedic statement because it was offered to show what the officers knew or believed at the time, not to prove the assault occurred.
- The excessive-force instruction, viewed as a whole, fairly stated the objective-reasonableness standard under *Graham* and Eighth Circuit law.
- Because Bady did not object to the instruction at trial, review was highly deferential, and no plain error was shown.

## Legal Principles

- An out-of-court statement is not hearsay when admitted solely to show its effect on the listener (e.g., what officers knew or thought they knew) in evaluating the objective reasonableness of force.
- Excessive-force claims under § 1983 are judged by objective reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the totality of circumstances rather than hindsight.
- Jury instructions tracking governing Supreme Court standards and circuit model instructions generally suffice; absent a timely objection, reversal requires plain error causing unfairness or a miscarriage of justice.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld a jury verdict for police officers accused of excessive force, holding that a paramedic’s report of an assault was admissible to show the officers’ contemporaneous perceptions and that the model *Graham*-based instruction did not misstate the law or warrant a new trial.


Bady v. Murphy-Kjos, 628 F.3d 1000 (8th Cir. 2011)