## Facts

- In the November 2, 1982 general election in Alexander County, North Carolina, federal and local candidates appeared on the ballot.
- The government alleged that Mark Douglas Odom (a deputy sheriff), Joyce Geraldine Beach (a clerk of court employee), Benny Carol Dyson (an associate of Odom), and James Lackey (a part-time sheriff’s employee) participated in a plan involving absentee ballots for residents of a rest home.
- The plan focused on residents of The Belle’s View Rest Home, many of whom were elderly and physically and mentally impaired.
- Evidence showed that letters requesting absentee ballots were submitted in residents’ names, often not signed personally by the residents, and that absentee ballot applications and ballots moved through the U.S. mail as part of the plan.
- At trial, the government presented testimony from many rest-home residents concerning their condition and their awareness (or lack of awareness) of voting and ballot handling.
- The defendants sought in camera competency determinations for each resident witness; the district court denied the request and conducted voir dire in the jury’s presence.
- The district court concluded nine residents could not understand the oath and did not swear them, but permitted them to give testimony; defense counsel did not contemporaneously object, later moved to strike, and then withdrew the motion.
- A federal grand jury charged defendants in a 30-count indictment: Counts 1–28 (mail fraud), Count 29 (conspiracy to vote more than once in a federal election), and Count 30 (voting more than once).
- All defendants were convicted on all counts; Odom, Beach, and Dyson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing testimony from witnesses who were not administered an oath required reversal where defendants did not timely object.
2. Whether testimony from impaired rest-home residents created unfair prejudice that substantially outweighed its probative value.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for mail fraud and for conspiracy and substantive offenses involving voting more than once in a federal election.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions on all counts.
- The court held that any error in admitting unsworn testimony did not warrant reversal because the defendants failed to make a contemporaneous objection and did not show plain error or resulting prejudice.
- The court held the residents’ testimony was properly admitted; the trial court’s competency rulings and evidentiary balancing were within its discretion.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to establish mail fraud, including use of the mails in furtherance of the scheme, and sufficient to support the multiple-voting conspiracy and substantive counts.

## Legal Principles

- A witness must testify under an oath or affirmation designed to impress the duty of truthfulness; however, failure to timely object to unsworn testimony generally waives the claim absent plain error affecting the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
- Trial courts have broad discretion to assess witness competency through voir dire and to decide whether examinations occur in or out of the jury’s presence.
- Relevant evidence bearing directly on contested facts may be admitted despite potential emotional impact, absent an abuse of discretion in weighing probative value against unfair prejudice.
- Mail fraud requires proof that the defendant knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud, that the mails were used to execute or further the scheme, and that the use of the mails was caused by a person connected with the scheme.
- Sufficiency challenges fail where the record permits a rational jury to find the essential elements of election-related multiple-voting offenses and related conspiracies beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed convictions arising from an absentee-ballot scheme involving rest-home residents, holding that challenges to unsworn testimony were forfeited absent plain error, that the admission of residents’ testimony and competency determinations fell within the trial court’s discretion, and that the evidence supported the mail-fraud and multiple-voting counts.


United States v. Odom, 736 F.2d 104 (4th Cir. 1984)