United States v. Donley

878 F.2d 735 (1989)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Donley

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
878 F.2d 735 (1989)

  • Written by Arlyn Katen, JD

Facts

A jury convicted Malcolm Donley (defendant) of the first-degree murder of his wife, Linda Donley. Malcolm did not deny killing Linda, but his defense was that he killed Linda in the heat of passion shortly after finding Linda in bed with another man. Malcolm also did not contest most of the prosecution’s (plaintiff) evidence. Linda was asleep in bed when Malcolm killed her. The Donley family lived on a United States Air Force base because Linda was stationed there as a sergeant, and the base’s housing office was considering terminating Linda’s entitlement to base housing due to repeated domestic disturbances between Linda and Malcolm. Linda developed a plan to convince Malcolm that the Donleys were being evicted and that Linda wanted to separate and move in with her parents; Linda hoped that Malcolm would move out first and Linda would stay on the base. The district court admitted hearsay statements that Linda made to her mother, Mrs. Brown, as proof of Linda’s plan and state of mind before the murder. Brown testified that she (1) visited the Donleys the day before Linda’s murder, (2) saw that Linda had begun packing, and (3) heard Linda mention the move, separation, and division of property to Malcolm. Malcolm appealed, arguing that the district court had erred by admitting Linda’s hearsay statements not just to prove Linda’s plan but also to prove Malcolm’s future conduct. Malcolm asserted that it was unnecessary to admit Brown’s highly prejudicial testimony about Linda’s statements because another witness, Captain Swanson, gave evidence of Linda’s plan. Malcolm further claimed that Brown’s testimony did not prove that Malcolm heard Linda’s statements.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Higginbotham, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership