United States v. Joe
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
8 F.3d 1488 (1993)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1980 Melvin Joe (defendant) and Julia Joe married, and in 1991 they separated. The couple’s four young children lived with Julia on an Indian reservation. One day in February 1992, Melvin became highly intoxicated and passed out. Hours later, Melvin drove to Julia’s home in a rampage and, eventually, hit and killed Julia and her neighbor Matilda Washburn with his car. The United States (plaintiff) charged Melvin with two counts of murder. Melvin admitted to killing the women but claimed that he was too intoxicated and enraged to have formed the specific intent to commit murder. At trial, the government offered the testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Brett Smoker, a family physician who had provided medical treatment to Julia eight days before she was killed. Dr. Smoker was allowed to testify that Julia had sought medical treatment for allegedly being raped by Melvin and that she said she feared him. As a result of Julia’s disclosure, Dr. Smoker had recommended that Julia seek counseling, protection from relevant law-enforcement agencies, and housing at a women’s shelter. Melvin was convicted of the charged murders, and he appealed, challenging the admission of Julia’s statement as relayed by her physician.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tacha, J.)
What to do next…
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.
