## Facts

- DEA Special Agent George Douglas Althouse worked with a local police sergeant on an investigation and left home late at night to attend a work-related meeting to discuss search warrants.
- Jefferson County Deputy Naylor Braswell, Althouse’s housemate, accompanied him in Braswell’s undercover black Z-28 Camaro.
- On the way, they stopped at a service station; Braswell went inside briefly while Althouse remained in the car and made a personal phone call.
- While Braswell was inside, he saw a person in the driver’s seat pointing a gun at Althouse; shots were fired, Althouse exited and fired at the Camaro as it sped away, and he died from gunshot wounds.
- Evidence indicated Dedrick Smith wanted an engine for his own Camaro; Smith and Eugene Clemons had been seeking a Camaro to steal; Clemons confronted Althouse with a gun during the attempted theft and fled with Smith after the shooting.
- The government prosecuted the killing as murder of a federal officer engaged in official duties and, as to Clemons, also charged a firearm offense tied to the crime of violence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Althouse was a federal officer “engaged in ... the performance of his official duties” at the time of the killing under 18 U.S.C. § 1114.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Clemons’s prior similar acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove identity and by admitting Clemons’s confession as a prior inconsistent statement.
3. Whether admitting Clemons’s confession violated Smith’s Confrontation Clause rights and whether impeachment questioning about Smith’s drug use was improper under Federal Rule of Evidence 608, and if so, whether any error was harmless.

## Decision

- Affirmed the convictions for murder of a federal agent under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1114 and Clemons’s firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
- Held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find Althouse was acting within his official duties while en route to a work-related meeting; the brief stop and personal activity did not remove him from that status.
- Held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Clemons’s prior similar acts under Rule 404(b) for identity and in using Clemons’s confession as a prior inconsistent statement.
- Held admission of Clemons’s confession did not violate Smith’s Confrontation Clause rights because Clemons was available for cross-examination.
- Found questioning Smith about drug use was evidentiary error but harmless because it did not affect substantial rights given the overall evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A federal officer may be “engaged in ... the performance of official duties” under 18 U.S.C. § 1114 while traveling to a work-related meeting; brief personal activity during travel does not necessarily terminate official-duty status.
- Prior-act evidence may be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) for a non-propensity purpose such as identity when the acts have distinctive probative features and satisfy balancing against unfair prejudice.
- Confrontation Clause concerns from a codefendant’s confession are mitigated when the declarant testifies or is available for cross-examination.
- Impeachment about drug use is not automatically admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608 as bearing on truthfulness; erroneous admission may be harmless if it does not affect substantial rights.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld the defendants’ convictions arising from a failed car theft that resulted in the shooting death of a DEA agent, ruling that the agent remained within the scope of official duties while traveling to a work meeting despite a brief stop, and concluding that the challenged evidentiary rulings either were proper or, where erroneous, harmless.


United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504 (11th Cir. 1994)