United States v. Richard St. Marks

MEMORANDUM

Richard St. Marks appeals his conviction for burglary. Without deciding whether the district court’s jury instructions correctly described Montana law’s knowledge requirement, we hold that any error in the instructions was harmless. We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by interrupting the defense counsel’s closing statement to strike what the court considered a “golden rule argument.” We therefore affirm.

Defendant distinguishes between knowingly and unlawfully entering the victims’ house and knowing of the unlawfulness of that entry, but since the government proved both kinds of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, that distinction makes no difference in this case. Defendant concedes that he did not in fact have permission to enter the victims’ house and overwhelming evidence shows he knew that: the door to the house was forced open, Defendant threatened the house’s inhabitants, and Defendant fled when he believed the police were on their way. Moreover, there is no suggestion that Defendant’s entry was the result of mistake or incapacity. Because the circumstances leave no reasonable doubt that Defendant knew his entry was unauthorized,…