## Facts

- Bobby Ray Golden, an on-duty police officer in Nowata, Oklahoma, stopped a motorist around 2:00 a.m. for an alleged traffic violation.
- During the encounter, Golden struck the motorist with a flashlight, causing injuries requiring eight stitches.
- Golden claimed the motorist resisted arrest and that the force used was necessary to subdue him; the prosecution argued the force was unjustified and excessive.
- After being struck, the motorist fled and drove to his grandmother’s home, where he made statements describing the assault and expressing fear.
- A federal grand jury charged Golden under 18 U.S.C. § 242 with willfully striking and assaulting the motorist, depriving him of liberty without due process by using unreasonable force under color of law.
- A jury convicted Golden; the district court imposed a one-year sentence (all but 60 days suspended) and five years’ probation.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Golden willfully used excessive and unnecessary force in violation of the victim’s due process rights, supporting a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
2. Whether the victim’s statements to his grandmother were admissible as excited utterances under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) and, if admissible, whether they should have been excluded as needlessly cumulative or unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
3. Whether the district court committed reversible error by admitting a flashlight as physical evidence and by its handling of an allegedly improper prosecutorial in-court demonstration involving the flashlight, including the adequacy of any jury admonition.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- Applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the court held there was substantial evidence from which a rational jury could find the essential elements of a § 242 offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including willful use of unjustified and excessive force.
- The court upheld admission of the grandmother’s testimony recounting the victim’s statements as excited utterances under Rule 803(2) and found no Rule 403 violation.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the flashlight or in the trial court’s management of the prosecutor’s demonstration, and no showing of prejudice warranting reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A state actor may be criminally liable under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for willfully depriving a person of due process by using unreasonable, unnecessary, or unprovoked force while acting under color of law.
- Sufficiency review follows Jackson v. Virginia: evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2), a statement relating to a startling event is admissible if made while the declarant remains under the stress of excitement caused by the event; a brief lapse of time is not dispositive when stress persists.
- Rule 403 exclusion requires that probative value be substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice or needless cumulative evidence.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over admission of physical exhibits and control of in-court demonstrations; reversal generally requires a showing of prejudicial error.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit sustained Golden’s federal civil-rights conviction, holding that the jury could reasonably find willful excessive force, that the victim’s immediate post-assault statements to his grandmother qualified as excited utterances and were not excludable under Rule 403, and that the challenged physical-evidence and demonstration rulings fell within the district court’s discretion without reversible prejudice.


United States v. Golden, 671 F.2d 369 (10th Cir. 1982)