## Facts

- Elizabeth Veltmann died in a January 7, 1990 house fire at the family’s three-story residence; firefighters found her unconscious in the third-floor master bedroom after entering through a locked front door.
- Fire investigators identified multiple suspected points of origin, including a major first-floor foyer fire and additional fires in the garage and dumbwaiter area; evidence also suggested the oven had been set to a high-heat “clean” cycle near the time of the fire.
- None of the home’s smoke detectors were sounding when firefighters arrived; the parties disputed whether detectors were disabled before the fire or failed for other reasons.
- The government alleged Carl Veltmann (Elizabeth’s husband) and Christopher Veltmann (her son) intentionally set the fires while Elizabeth was inside to collect proceeds under life and property insurance policies.
- The defense theory was suicide: that Elizabeth, facing serious medical problems, prescription-drug addiction, and financial and personal stress, set the fire herself.
- After Elizabeth’s death, an undated note described as a suicide note was found.
- The defense sought to present a deposition from Carl Engstrom, a former lover, describing Elizabeth’s repeated references to suicide and her financial desperation in the months before the fire; the district court excluded the deposition and restricted related state-of-mind proof.
- Carl and Chris were convicted in federal district court of homicide and multiple counts of mail and wire fraud based on insurance claims; the district court denied motions for judgment of acquittal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and whether the district court properly denied motions for judgment of acquittal.
2. Whether a non-pattern reasonable-doubt instruction improperly diluted the government’s burden of proof.
3. Whether admitting evidence of prior, remote, non-similar fires was improper under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403.
4. Whether excluding decedent state-of-mind evidence—particularly Engstrom’s deposition—was error under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) and deprived defendants of a meaningful opportunity to present the suicide defense.
5. Whether admitting Chris’s post-arrest statements implicating Carl violated confrontation limits applicable to joint trials.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motions for judgment of acquittal, holding a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
- The court found no reversible error in the non-pattern reasonable-doubt instruction because it did not misstate the burden or lower the proof standard.
- The court reversed based on evidentiary error, principally the exclusion of defense state-of-mind evidence supporting the suicide theory.
- The court held the erroneous exclusion was not harmless because it bore directly on the central alternative explanation for Elizabeth’s death and the jury’s reasonable-doubt determination.
- The case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction withstands sufficiency review if, taking the evidence in the government’s favor, a reasonable factfinder could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; credibility disputes generally do not justify acquittal on appeal.
- Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) permits admission of hearsay statements reflecting a declarant’s then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition (including intent, motive, and plan), when offered to prove that condition.
- When a defendant’s theory depends on the decedent’s mental state (e.g., suicidality), exclusion of probative state-of-mind evidence may constitute reversible error, particularly where it substantially impairs the ability to present the defense.
- An evidentiary error is harmless only if it is highly probable the error did not affect the verdict; errors affecting the core theory of defense are unlikely to be harmless.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held the evidence was sufficient and the reasonable-doubt instruction was not reversible error, but it reversed and remanded for a new trial because the district court improperly excluded key Rule 803(3) state-of-mind evidence supporting the defense theory that the decedent committed suicide, an error the court could not deem harmless.


United States v. Veltmann, 6 F.3d 1483 (11th Cir. 1993)